Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Madam Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), I remind hon. Members that I have a lot of applications to speak in the debate. In the best interests of all concerned, it would be appropriate to have short speeches.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am pleased to have secured time to debate this important issue. I can confidently say that the channel tunnel rail link is a national issue. I hope to reinforce the well-argued and, I believe, accepted view that the CTRL is critical to the United Kingdom economy. The Government must continue to do all that they can to support the project and ensure its speedy completion. I know that many hon. Members are keen to contribute to the debate, so I intend to limit my speech to around 15 minutes—or at least that is what I have timed it at without interventions.
I shall refer to three basic points: first, the history of the project and how we got to the current dreadful situation; secondly, why the CTRL is a national, not just a regional issue; and thirdly, the importance of the CTRL to east London in particular and how it fits in with the transport infrastructure already being built or developed there.
I almost hesitate to point an accusing finger at the previous Government on the project's history, because I assume that most of the Conservative Members present this morning support the link. However, it is impossible not to make some comment. I hope that they will forgive me for saying that their former colleagues in the previous Government failed spectacularly when they told the House that they had reached a sensible business deal with London and Continental Railways.
Criticisms of the business plan, particularly those about the passenger projections, have now been shown to have been well founded. Even at the time, it was recognised that we were 10 years behind our European partners in building a fast link. Our standing in Europe has suffered as a consequence of that indecision and will continue to suffer if we do not rectify the position.
However, that criticism is history. As well as accusing and apportioning blame, I should also applaud and commend vision. I am happy to appreciate the number of former Ministers who recognise the importance of the CTRL to the UK economy in general—and east London in particular—and those who fought for the project in

the Cabinet. I am even happier to commend my right hon. Friends in the present Cabinet who are fighting for the project.
The launch in Birmingham on Friday 20 February of the campaign known as Faster—Fast Tracks to Europe—demonstrates the national significance of the rail link. The campaign brings together local authorities from Glasgow, Manchester, York, Birmingham, London and the south-east, as well as business and industry from those areas, including the London chamber of commerce and industry. They jointly articulated the importance of national fast-track access to Europe for our regions. For the European Union to have the support of the people of this country, they need to have access to Europe.
We are joined to Europe by the channel tunnel. The rail link on our side must be as fast and convenient as that on the continent. Had the link been built by now, as it should have been, life would be a lot easier for West Ham United football supporters to travel to away games next season, when we qualify for Europe.
On a more serious note, it would be wrong not to take this opportunity to refer to my concerns about safety and Eurotunnel's continued resistance to separating passengers from their vehicles on Le Shuttle. The fire on the latticed freight transporter demonstrated the dangers of a fire in the tunnel. I firmly believe that the decision not to separate passengers from their vehicles was taken on flawed commercial grounds. Safety has been at best compromised and at worst disregarded by Eurotunnel—but I digress.
The United Kingdom as a whole needs the fast link. I know that the Government recognise that fact, and I dearly hope that they ensure that it goes ahead. My main comments are about the impact of the CTRL on east London. I can confidently leave others to address the issues that affect the rest of the United Kingdom, the Thames gateway and the rest of London, and the south-east. I know that others may refer to blight, which has adversely affected homes and businesses across the south-east and had—and continues to have—a negative impact on the lives of our people. I have heard particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) refer to that issue in other debates. Uncertainty, misery, unemployment, redundancy and negative equity are a few of the effects that their constituencies have had to endure. They need the matter resolved as soon as possible. This is certainly a serious issue.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the most important forgotten victims of the whole fiasco are the hundreds of families whose homes have been blighted, through no fault of their own, by the mess that has been made of introducing the scheme? Does he accept that if there is further delay, we should ask the Government to introduce as swiftly as they can a more generous compensation scheme, so that residents who are unable to sell their homes have the opportunity to move and do not have their lives destroyed by something that has been brought about through no fault of their own?

Mr. Fitzpatrick: As one of my hon. Friend's constituents, I know that she has campaigned long and hard on the issue. I readily accept her points. I am sure that the Government will take note.
Many people believe that London is Westminster and the corridors of power, the BBC and Fleet street. Perhaps it is if one is from outside the capital. But the real London, my London, is Poplar and Canning Town, an area of high unemployment—14.2 per cent.—of poverty, deprivation, overcrowding and homelessness, which puts Tower Hamlets and Newham among the 10 most deprived local authorities in the UK. But that is changing.
The Government's social exclusion strategy has been written for constituencies such as mine. Education standards are being raised, communities and long-forgotten estates are being rebuilt and partnerships between new business communities and local people are being engendered in east London. To ensure success, and in order to deliver, we need the transport infrastructure.
Already, we have had some new roads, and we have London Underground's District and Central lines, and Stansted airport. New developments are under way on the docklands light railway, and the City airport is looking to expand. Improved bus routes are taking shape and the Jubilee line extension to Stratford opens in 12 months. Improvements are planned for the A13, and there is a real prospect that the Thames will be crossed at three new separate points in the years immediately ahead.
The final piece of the integrated transport jigsaw is rail. Even now, rail is playing its part, but the channel tunnel rail link, with the international station at Stratford, makes it all make sense. The project is about the next millennium, planning for the future. This is the stuff of boldness, of vision, of government.
In economic terms, east London has for too long been the poor relation of the family that is our great city of London. Historically, the east end has been a starting point for waves of immigration—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, black and Asian communities. In common with most other eastern quarters of cities in the United Kingdom, east London has been our industrial centre. With prevailing westerly winds, it was convenient for our Victorian ancestors to locate certain industries in our part of town, where the sensibilities of others would not be offended by the smell, which would be directed away from the City. Consequently, gas and sewerage works linked with business that was dependent on the docks, to create a potent cocktail. But times have changed.
We still have some important traditional industries, but, following the closure of the docks, regeneration of the area was addressed, and the industrial focus moved to a commercial one. In the past 20 years, thousands of jobs and many businesses and organisations have moved to east London. The benefits are yet to penetrate the poverty that many local communities still suffer, but that will happen. I repeat the suggestion that I made in the debate on the Greater London authority, that docklands would be a wholly appropriate home for the new mayor and the elected assembly.
As I said, there is high unemployment, overcrowding and homelessness in my constituency—all the indices of poverty. The Government's new deal programme and welfare reform, as part of their social exclusion strategy, are critical. That is where we can make a difference. East London is the gateway to Europe. For Britain to be successful, London must thrive. For London to prosper, we need continuously to renew. The symbolism of

docklands, Canary wharf, the millennium dome and, yes, even baby dome, is our beacon. It says to Europe and the rest of the world, "This is our capital; This is our country; This is our future." If the channel tunnel rail link is not built now, it will delay our renewal by a generation—although not prevent it. When we look back at the Tories' 10 years of indecision, we say that they were weak and frightened, and that they failed. This Government must not fail.
The London borough of Camden and its advisers have calculated that not to proceed with the CTRL would cost £850 million. Additionally, the Thameslink 2000 project, which was part of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, would be compromised by any decision either not to proceed or to phase the project. Waterloo is not a real option because it does not have the capacity, particularly if the hope to move more freight by rail rather than road is to be realised.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my constituents in Beckenham and throughout Bromley will be supporting his and his colleagues' plans to ensure that the channel tunnel rail link goes east of London because, at the moment, they are suffering from the noise and disruption caused by Eurostar.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support.
It is calculated that, as a regeneration engine, the CTRL could create between 80,000 and 120,000 new jobs. When in opposition, Labour endorsed the project and flagged up what were seen as flaws in the business plan, to try to ensure its success. We need to support the project now that Labour is in power because the reasons why we supported it then are as valid now, if not more so—even if that means more public resources and financing.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am a bit worried by that. Is my hon. Friend really saying that we should commit a great deal more public money without getting something in return? I am sure that that is not quite what he means. We all want the project to go ahead, but I hope that the Government will look very closely at what the taxpayer will get in return.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct in encouraging the Government to look very closely at the prospect of allocating additional resources. However, I believe that the benefits that will accrue to the UK in general warrant consideration of additional resources. If London and Continental Railways is unable to deliver a new financial package, the Government may want to look to such an option.
It is encouraging that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has afforded LCR extra time, because it seems to be making progress. I am aware from contacts with various businesses over the past 48 hours that at least three other international consortiums are queuing up in case LCR fails. Although I hope that extra public finance is not necessary, I do not think that the Government should disregard the option. The prize at stake is too great.
This issue is not an east London, a London or even a south-east one. It concerns the whole of the UK. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime


Minister and his colleagues on the attention that they have given the matter so far and on their determination to make it work. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing them every success.

Mr. Damian Green: I welcome the chance to speak in this debate while delicate negotiations are going on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on suggesting the debate. I am glad that he steered away quickly from turning the issue into a party political one. At this stage particularly, that would be completely inappropriate.
Broadly, I endorse the thrust of much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance not only of the link being built but of the whole link being built, so that the full benefits can be obtained. The people of Kent, including those in my constituency and all along the route of the line, have suffered blight and uncertainty for many years because of both the prospect of the line and the many delays in building it.
What those people deserve is that when the link is eventually built it will be a great national project bringing regeneration. The benefits that the people of Kent deserve come into two categories. The first would be better commuter links for themselves, not only on the line itself but through the release of capacity on other rail lines that have become increasingly crowded as the Kent economy has improved over the past few years.
Secondly, the people of Kent deserve the knowledge that the project is an essential link in a national project—indeed, an international project—involving not only the urban regeneration that the hon. Gentleman described but the general upgrading of rail services throughout Britain and into Europe.
I want to talk about what seems to be happening, and the likely effects. I warn the Minister that if the Government cannot find the subsidy to build the whole link at once—I dare say that that is the most likely eventuality—warm words about building future phases, after a first phase stopping at Southfleet, will not be enough. The people who live along the route, and channel tunnel rail link enthusiasts throughout the country, will want to see a firm timetable for building the entire line, with penalty clauses written in so that the timetable can be enforced.
Almost the worst eventuality would be for part of the link to be built, with all the disruption that that would cause, followed by vague words about how the rest of it would be built in phases over the years to come, but for the years to tick by with phases 2 and 3 delayed. In my more pessimistic moments, that seems to me to be the most likely outcome. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that it is not.

Mr. Stephen Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether he has noticed that some newspapers, including the Financial Times, are suggesting that it would be a good thing if only the first section of the link were built. Does he agree that that would be a disaster, and that the Government must ensure that when an announcement is made about taking the project forward there is full confidence that the whole link will be completed?

Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I reinforce it from my constituency point of view.

Because people have had to put up with blight and uncertainty for so long, they will be angry if they feel that, after all the inconvenience and damage to housing and to businesses along the route, the only result is 10 minutes off the journey. That would not seem like a sensible equation of advantage and disadvantage.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: As I am now being allowed to intervene, I shall not endeavour to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, because of the number of other hon. Members who want to speak.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and I have collaborated closely on the matter, especially concerning our mutual problems with business blight and the distressing circumstances of small and medium-sized businesses.
I have every confidence that everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying is what I would have uttered if I had caught your eye, Madam Speaker, so I want to associate myself with it, and acknowledge the way in which the hon. Gentleman and I have collaborated in making representations to the Minister about our local businesses.
I reinforce the idea not only that the link must be built in its entirety but that any slippage would be an abuse of Parliament, because the long title of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 makes it abundantly clear that Parliament's intention was for the whole link to be built with the maximum expedition.

Mr. Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for those remarks, with which I agree, but for his share in the work that we have done together on behalf of small businesses in both our constituencies, which are often in severe difficulty because of the various delays to the link.
I ask the Minister to give me some assurances and to answer some detailed questions about the propositions now before the Government. It is about 12 hours since I was last in the Chamber, and at that point the Minister was sitting there replying to a debate—so may I congratulate her on both her stamina and her versatility?

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I was standing, not sitting.

Mr. Green: Yes, she was standing. One wonders whether she ever gets away from that place.
I should like to receive three assurances from the Minister. The first is that whichever new project comes forward and whatever consortium is building it, there will be no relaxation of the environmental standards imposed in the original Bill that went through both Houses of Parliament and was fought over in detail by many people in this House and in another place, as well as in local communities along the route.
Along the route there is much fear and cynicism to the effect that one of the ways in which money might be saved when a new project emerges would be to relax the environmental standards. The Minister could reassure many people by giving an assurance this morning. In that context, I take it as read that when a new project comes forward there can be no change to the route currently before Parliament.
The second assurance for which I should be grateful is that the delays will soon come to an end. One understands that we are talking about complex commercial


negotiations, to which the Government are only one party, so perhaps it was over-optimistic to expect them to be wrapped up in the 30 days that the Deputy Prime Minister originally suggested.
None the less, I must tell the Minister that businesses along the route, including those referred to by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), are especially damaged by the lengthening uncertainty, and I urge her to move as fast as possible to a conclusion of the negotiations.
The third assurance that I seek is that no secrecy should surround the deal eventually struck. Railtrack is at times an inherently secretive organisation. For example, last year an accident—not serious, fortunately—happened in my constituency. When I wrote to Railtrack some months later asking for details of its inquiry, and what remedial measures it proposed to take, I was shocked at its reply that the information was not available to the public and it was up to the Health and Safety Executive to say whether it should be released. The HSE wrote back to me saying that it was not its responsibility but Railtrack's—and compounded the insult by accompanying the letter with a pamphlet on open government.

Mr. Michael Howard: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest assurances that the people of Kent could have would be one from the Minister today that Kent county council will be fully consulted and involved in the decision-making process? We hope that the decision will be completed as soon as possible, but we should like the county council to be fully involved.

Mr. Green: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Kent county council has played, and is playing, an active and constructive role in bringing the project forward, and it is important that its ability to represent the people of Kent is recognised by full consultation during the negotiations.
The Minister will recognise the importance of avoiding secrecy, because, speaking in the House about the deal with London and Continental, she said:
I understand that no one in the House is privileged to see the contracts in any detail or to discuss them, on grounds of commercial confidentiality. It is a curious commercial enterprise that is clouded in mystery in one direction."—[Official Report, 25 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 629.]
I am sure that the hon. Lady will endorse her own words and will not wish such secrecy to surround the project in future. Will she assure the House that full details of any agreement will be put in the Library for the perusal of Members?
As well as asking for those three assurances, I shall ask the Minister three questions. First, what type of freight does the Department think will be carried? We hear a lot about the freight benefits of the link. I assure the Minister that this is a genuine search for truth. Many, perhaps most, of the questions asked in the House are questions to which the questioner thinks he or she already knows the answer, but in this case, I genuinely have no idea of the answer, and no one connected to the project has ever satisfactorily explained it. We all agree that the line as planned will not be able to take any kind of heavy freight, but there is

vague talk of "high-value freight" being carried. I am not sure whether that means any more than parcel freight, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give some guidance.
My second question is whether it is feasible or practical for Eurostar to share the lines between Southfleet and London with the existing commuter traffic if we go for a phased project, with the first part of the line built to Southfleet and the rest built in stages afterwards. I have been assured by reasonably well-qualified railway engineers that the amount of commuter traffic using the lines from Canterbury and the Medway towns to London will mean that either we will have to cut the commuter traffic in the rush hour or Eurostar will not be able to run in the rush hour. If that is true, it suggests that the phasing of the project would be simply impractical.
My third question is whether the benefits of upgrading the existing track are being considered while the Government are looking at all the options available to them. Engineers say that, effectively, we could save 15 minutes from the journey for £1 billion. We are, broadly speaking, talking about spending £7 billion or £8 billion to save 35 minutes, and it seems that that proposal deserves full consideration.
We recognise that the channel tunnel is a great national achievement, but it is only half an achievement. Linking the tunnel to the rail network of this country is the other half. London and Continental has had many failings, not just the central failing of its passenger projections which has led to the current financial plight. More particularly, it has been determined to keep secret the fact that it is more convenient for the whole of the south-east of England to drive to Ashford and travel from there than to struggle in to Waterloo. Despite the best efforts of the excellent management and staff at the Ashford international passenger station, the marketing of the station by London and Continental has been inadequate. Perhaps that is a symbol of its lack of commercial acumen.
Many people—not just my constituents, but all the people of Kent and the rest of the country—hope that the consortium put together by the Government shows more sensitivity to the needs of people who live, work and run their businesses along the route. We hope that it will be able to complete the project so that the whole country can gain the advantages that will be available from it.

Mr. Peter Snape: It is perhaps appropriate that I follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) because I shared the job of co-chairman of the all-party channel tunnel group with his predecessor, Sir Keith Speed, for many years.
I wish to make two declarations of interest. First, as a former railwayman, I am still a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—one of the reasons behind my interest in this great project. I am also the chairman of Travel West Midlands, a bus company based in Birmingham which is a subsidiary of National Express—itself a member of the London and Continental consortium. I ask the House to appreciate that I am not speaking on behalf of National Express. I have never had anything to do with the railway side of its operation, but I feel that such a connection should be on the record before I speak in the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House. In an able speech, he talked about the history of the project. However, he did not go back far enough. Those of us who have the doubtful benefit of old age can remember this project in the 1970s when, I must say, neither of our main parties came out with any great credit. The Channel Tunnel Bill was cancelled by the Labour Government shortly they were elected in 1974.
I say to my hon. Friend and other colleagues who feel that public money should be put into the project that one of the reasons given for the cancellation was that there were other priorities for public money. At that time, many of my hon. Friends were in favour of the cancellation of the project because they wanted public money spent on schools, hospitals and other matters with which the Government were directly involved. I must tell my hon. Friend that I would not hold my breath too long if he thinks that the Treasury is likely to come to the rescue of London and Continental, or anyone else.
I was more amused than angered by the intervention of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is no longer in his place. I do not know how any member of the previous Cabinet could jump up and defend his constituents against the effect of this project on their lives, given the enormous mess that the Conservatives made of it from beginning to end. I admire his cheek, if not the basis on which he made his intervention.
The hon. Member for Ashford and all of us are anxious that the link is built as quickly as possible. I attended the meeting in Birmingham last Friday to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town referred. The Fast Tracks to Europe group is unrealistic when it says that the project must not be phased. Whatever happens, it seems unlikely that the work will start at each end of the route and will meet in the middle. Some phasing is inevitable. It looks as if the southern section will be built first, because—let us be realistic—it is likely to be a lot cheaper.
I have seen the figures produced by Fast Tracks to Europe, which suggest that such an approach will cost money because of the loss of benefits, but I have yet to hear a real alternative. If no Government money is involved, and if the projections for Eurostar travel—receipts from which will go towards the building of the project—are accurate, some degree of phasing, unpalatable though it might be to us all, is inevitable.
Around 1991, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—that great social engineer of the previous Government—decided to change the route. I know that that decision suited some of my hon. Friends, and I congratulate them on the effectiveness of their campaign. When the right hon. Gentleman changed the route, companies such as Blue Circle found themselves to be sitting on valuable real estate in the Ebbsfleet area. Coincidentally, the public relations company involved with Blue Circle at that time had as one of its representatives the former vice-chairman of the Conservative party, Dame Angela Rumbold.
I wonder whether companies that made money out of the project have volunteered to put any of their extra profits into the cost of building the rail link—particularly that part of it north of their land which is more expensive

because of the need to tunnel under London. Cynic that I am, I would be surprised if any volunteer had come forward.
All of us want the project to benefit the rest of the country. Those of us who represent constituencies in the west midlands are no less anxious to see that happy event come about. What we have at present is the worst of both worlds. We have all the uncertainty about the future of the link, and we have no through trains to Europe. Indeed, the connecting trains to Waterloo have been removed by London and Continental, although many remain on the timetable. Last week, the Birmingham Evening Mail and the BBC highlighted the absurdity of a local train being held for eight minutes at Birmingham international station to allow for one of the Eurostars that do not exist as far as the west midlands is concerned.
I understand some of the difficulties in getting a safety case for the trains north of London. As far as I understand, they still only run between Manchester and somewhere like Bletchley. I should be grateful to the Minister if she would tell us what progress is being made to introduce those trains north of London, and whether the newspaper rumours about the trains being leased to Virgin or any other train operator for incorporation into their service are valid. No one north of London, and few people in London, have benefited from the project so far.
As the hon. Member for Ashford said, the link is a great engineering project, and all hon. Members attending this debate want to ensure that the original intentions of the Committee dealing with the channel tunnel are carried out. I am sorry if this sounds like a plea for medals for a rather undistinguished career, but I served on the first channel tunnel Committee in the 1970s—I remember, to my amusement, that there were only about 60 objectors then. When I served on the subsequent Committee in the mid-1980s, there were 12,000 objectors.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who is no longer in the Chamber, illustrated the dilemma that arises from the channel tunnel rail link and the expansion of the railway system—all of us are in favour of expanding the network, until the trains run through our constituencies or past the bottom of our gardens. According to the hon. Lady, the prospect of an hourly train of 18 coaches going to Paris or Brussels makes life intolerable for her constituents. I think that she exaggerates. People who buy houses next to railway lines and then complain about the noise from trains do not endear themselves to me as a former railwayman, although some of my hon. Friends may take a different view. We want the benefits of the link to be brought to the rest of the country, as was intended, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can answer some of the points that have been made.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town is as realistic as I am about subsidy—he knows that Treasury involvement is unlikely. The fact that, across the country, road bridges are being strengthened to take 44 tonne lorries—that is a direct subsidy to the road haulage industry by the taxpayer—yet both the previous and current Governments said that public money cannot be found for the great project that is the channel tunnel rail link is an illustration of how we treat different forms of transport.
I add, as an amusing aside, that when Lord Parkinson stood at the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Transport, he used to say, "There must be no public


money for the channel tunnel or the rail link." Nevertheless, he popped up later as chairman of one of the consortiums asking for £1 billion of public money for that very rail link. That illustrates the awesome warning to all hon. Members—never say never. We should never say never about this great project.

Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I start by running through some of the history of the project—not the whole history, hon. Members will be pleased to hear. The first reference to a high-speed link that the Library could identify came in a speech by Sir Bob Reid on 9 May 1988. He said that a high-speed link would be built if it brought
the right level of profit".
Hon. Members may be interested to know what was happening in France at that time. Construction of the train grande vitesse north line began after the end of September 1989.
Nearly 10 years on, and many miles of new roads later, the House is debating a future high-speed rail link, while Eurostar ambles through south London—Brixton, Beckenham and Orpington—at an embarrassingly relaxed and leisurely pace. What progress has been made in France? As hon. Members may know, its high-speed link was opened in September 1993—four and a half years ago—at a cost of £2 billion. That is a sad indictment of the previous Government's obsessive love affair with roads and their indifference to the railways.
The White Paper to be published soon will confirm whether the new Government have a more balanced approach to infrastructure provision and whether they believe that there should be a level playing field for roads and rail. In the meantime, they have to contend with the thorny issue of the channel tunnel rail link.
Over the past few weeks, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has been considering the pros and cons of allowing the project to sink or swim. I give three good reasons why the high-speed link should be built. First, it will make it easier to shift freight off the roads and on to rail by releasing network capacity for freight trains. Secondly, it will cut CO2 emissions, as many short-haul passengers who currently fly will choose to travel by rail. Thirdly, as hon. Members have said, it will help to regenerate some of the poorest parts of east London, developing the recycled sites that the Deputy Prime Minister has prioritised.
There is also a good reason why the link should be built along the current route. We are already five years behind the French, so surely our national pride will not let us slip behind a further five years while new legislation is drafted to provide for a new route.
If the Deputy Prime Minister accepts that argument, he has the choice of four partners—London and Continental Railways, Railtrack, Bechtel and Eurorail—some or all of which could take the project forward. If he seeks a deal with LCR, he should not reward it for its past bad management and judgment. If he seeks a deal with Railtrack, he should offer no sweeteners—he should not allow it to impose higher access charges for all other rail

users. If he fails to secure a deal with LCR, Railtrack or any of the other players, and chooses not to back the project, I would ask him a simple question—what is Government for?

Mr. Snape: You lot would not know.

Mr. Brake: We shall find out shortly.
Liberal Democrats believe that Government should protect people on some of the lowest incomes—such as people with disabilities or lone parents—provide free education and take the lead. Even if the Government do not agree on the first two points, I hope that they can agree on the third. If no commercial operator produces an acceptable package, the Government—through a public interest company, bond issue or other measures—must step in. The need for Government involvement in such a strategic project was recognised even by the previous Administration, who committed £1.4 billion to the rail link.
The country needs the high-speed rail link, and it needs it to be built in its entirety—a 17-minute reduction in journey time for the first phase is not a sufficient benefit. I understand that Department of Trade and Industry lawyers advised the Government that if they intended to build not the full length but only stage one, a new Act would be required, with all the delays that that would entail. The Government must, therefore, be committed to building the full link.
The channel tunnel rail link is the first real test of the Government's commitment to an integrated transport policy, to moving freight from road to rail and to meeting their own CO2 reduction targets. It is now up to the Deputy Prime Minister to show us whether he can rise to that challenge, or whether, like his Conservative predecessors, he will falter and stumble.

Mr. Paul Clark: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate at such an opportune time. Hon. Members from all parties recognise the difficulties that face both London and Continental Railways and the Government in saving and developing something from this project—although we should not save just any old thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town said, the project is not a local or regional issue; it is a vital national and transcontinental one.
The rail link will draw in business to the channel tunnel from the east and, via the west coast main line, from the midlands, the north-west and the west of Scotland. Businesses and individuals will be able to capitalise on the opportunities that the link provides. Other hon. Members may be able to point up the significance of the rail link on a national level.
The link will open up the Government-identified Thames gateway region, which extends from east London through Dartford and down the north Kent coast, and includes my constituency and the western boundaries of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. The area contains about 2.5 million people, 17 local authorities, 10,000 acres of business and industrial land, and three training and enterprise councils.
The Thames gateway is the largest European regeneration area. The Government's regional strategy identifies north Kent as a growth point for major development. Significantly, much of that development, in business and new homes, would be on an abundant source of brown-field sites, which is clearly in line with Government policy.
The development of the Thames gateway will unlock major locations that face directly the main European markets. To succeed, we need the infrastructure: the rail link must be developed in its entirety. A link that stops short of the new international station at Ebbsfleet and transfers to existing lines will not deliver the regeneration, unlock the brown-field sites and help the people of north Kent.
It is anticipated that the development of Ebbsfleet will bring up to 50,000 new jobs and allow 30,000 new homes to be built. For the approximately 300,000 people living in the Medway towns, it will be a catalyst for new opportunities, with direct rail links to jobs along the north Kent line.
In addition to the development, a new commercial zone will be created adjoining Ebbsfleet station. There will be sustainable journey-to-work patterns by public transport, rather than by car, which, again, is in line with our integrated transport strategy.
The full scheme, including the new stations at Ebbsfleet and Stratford, will afford the people of north Kent greater job opportunities, as they will have access to new areas such as Stratford and St. Pancras. Those jobs will be linked to far faster and more reliable rail services: Gillingham will be only 30 minutes from St. Pancras if the link is built in its entirety.
The link is essential for the regeneration and redevelopment policies of the Government and of Kent county council. Failure to complete it will send out the wrong signals. The private sector has already made huge commitments to north Kent. Failure to honour the promises that elicited those commitments will destroy confidence not only in the immediate area but, I fear, in other developments that are proposed along the entire route of the integrated link, including east London, Birmingham and the west midlands, and the north-west.
We should record our appreciation of the fact that the House has been kept quickly and reliably informed through the offices of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in both a statement and a written answer. Our resolve to build the link, which will eventually connect the east, the west, the south and the north of our country to the European capitals of commerce must not weaken. Failure could mean that we end up as a branch line to Brussels.
We must remain true to the original agreements. The Deputy Prime Minister's statement last month informed us that there was no intention to consider an alternative alignment to that approved in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. That is more than welcome. Any deviation would be the death knell of a realistically timed completion of the link.
Hon. Members who are far more au fait than I am with developments over the past 20 years—at least—said that various alternative routes had been canvassed. I whole-heartedly agree with what the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said about blight and uncertainty, because those alternative routes caused much anxiety

and concern among home owners and businesses; my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) also mentioned the business side. It is essential that competition should not reopen for the design, construction and operation of the link, as that would open a Pandora's box of alternatives and variations.
One benefit of the link will be to open up existing lines for other uses, increasing both passenger and freight capacity. I shall be interested in the Minister's response about freight, as there seem to be some differences of opinion. I understand that there will be increased capacity for freight on some existing lines, as well as along the link. That will have an important environmental impact in helping us to reduce traffic congestion.
The environmental impact of the link itself must be minimised. Debates in both Houses over two years have developed negotiations that have led to high standards and considerable sophistication in the plan, which incorporates measures embodied in the environmental minimum requirements and undertakings given by the previous Government and LCR. It is essential to adhere to that.
We must grasp the opportunities before us if we are to be a key player in the issues of integrated transport, commerce and the European Union. The development of the link gives us the opportunity to create the right balance and to implement the Government's sound objectives on issues such as the fight against poverty, social inclusion, the environment, integrated transport, the regions, and Europe.
This is not a local issue, as can be seen by the range of hon. Members who signed early-day motion 770 and by the membership of Fast Tracks to Europe, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, which includes many private sector organisations and the leaders of many local authorities throughout the country.
The message, specifically from the Medway towns, is that we must build the link in its entirety as quickly as possible, so that we can have the transport links that are needed for the 21st century.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. He has done the House a great service. It is a little sad that the bipartisan approach slipped somewhat. It is up to the current Government to decide how to proceed on the matters that face them, but it would be churlish of hon. Members not to note that the channel tunnel itself was built during the 18 years of Conservative government. I am proud to defend the record of the Conservative Government, which was democratically elected on four occasions.

Mr. Snape: There were also a few hot summers during the period of office of the previous Conservative Government. Is the hon. Gentleman going to claim credit for those as well? On the insistence of the then Prime Minister, not a penny of public money went into the channel tunnel.

Mr. Amess: That is exactly the point and it is something which has been learnt from the Conservative Government. I shall leave claiming the credit for hot summers to the Liberal party and new Labour.
I must also pay tribute to the noble Lords Parkinson and Channon, who did a great deal during their terms of office to drive the project forward. Our former colleague Michael Portillo, as Minister of State at the Department of Transport, also did a great deal to make the channel tunnel project the success that it obviously is. Finally, without the noble Baroness Thatcher none of it would have been possible.
My roots run deep and I suspect that I am the only person in the Chamber who was born in the east end of London—in Stratford. In the previous Parliament, it was my great joy to work with, among others, the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—now the Minister for Sport—and Mr. Nigel Spearing, who has now retired. We worked together in a bipartisan fashion and a great deal has been achieved as regards our particular concerns in Newham.
I still have family living in Newham; indeed, that is where the tiny vote for the Conservative party comes from these days. Although I was less than satisfied for a long time with what went on there—I call those the barmy days of Labour—a number of projects are a great joy, particularly those in Stratford. I protested about the pyramid 20 years ago, saying that it was a waste of time building it and I note that last week it was blown up—my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will have enjoyed that—so I was right in my protestations all those years ago.
The channel tunnel rail link is important not merely for Newham but for both our Essex constituencies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is essential that the project is completed. For docklands and Stratford in particular the link is essential—it is the most important rail link.
I wish that I had time to touch on the excellent advice that I have been given by the London borough of Newham regeneration and partnerships division, which has done some great work on the subject. I must emphasise its point that:
Without the CTRL being built in its entirety … to central London, there will not be the possibility of moving commuter trains from Kent from congested existing lines onto it between international trains and 'freeing up' capacity for more freight movement through Kent to the Channel Tunnel. Indeed given the growth figures already referred to, the Integrated Transport Strategy, on which so many hopes are built, especially that freight will be moved from road to rail, could face an immediate crisis of insufficient capacity. Phasing solely to Southfleet or Ebbsfleet could deliver the worst scenario of all—no possibility of increasing either the number of international trains an hour (from the current 3) and no extra capacity for freight trains unless the number of commuter services is reduced. It is already clear that the different train operators recognise the looming problem. However, with Railtrack—the track provider—set to be a major player in the CTRL rescue … they are reticent in voicing concerns when they may shortly be competing with other train operators for an insufficiency of train paths.
I realise that this is a difficult moment for the new Government—how best to approach the challenges facing them—but I hope that we will not be churlish and that we will rejoice in this great engineering feat. I hope in particular that the House will be minded to support the efforts of Newham council and Stratford in particular.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this important Adjournment debate. He has distinguished himself as a first-class chairman of the all-party Thames gateway group. He and my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark,) make a formidable team in leading our group, which represents constituencies in London and the south-east. The success of the Thames gateway is fundamental to our opportunities to secure economic regeneration, as many of those opportunities stem from the building of the channel tunnel rail link.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Is my hon. Friend aware that the opportunities for regeneration are immense in my constituency? As Opposition Members and my hon. Friends have already said, up to 50,000 new jobs could be created as a result of the creation of Ebbsfleet international station. Also, 90 per cent. of the 30,000 new houses proposed for the area would be built on recycled land, in line with Government policy, thus protecting the green belt for the area.

Mr. Shaw: That is an excellent point, and just the sort of example I was looking for, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I will not discuss the route in its entirety, but I associate myself with all the other comments about that. I must focus briefly on an issue that affects constituents who live in and around the Medway towns—the M2 widening and the construction of the channel tunnel rail link, both of which were authorised in legislation. During the parliamentary process, the three authorities that represent my constituency—Rochester city council, Tonbridge and Malling district council and Kent county council—stressed the importance of the co-ordination of those projects. We argued that the construction of the bridges across the Medway valley had to take place at the same time. My constituents and the infrastructure in the Medway towns would suffer considerably anyway as a result of the construction and we recognised that, but to start one project across the valley, finish it and then start another would be a nightmare scenario. The estimated time scale for the channel tunnel rail link over the Medway valley is likely to be about three years and for the M2, three and a half years, which could mean six and a half years of disruption and chaos for my constituents. However, put the two projects together and we could reduce the time to four and a half years, which would be not only less destructive but more cost effective.
Understandably, we were pleased when the Government accepted that the two projects should be co-ordinated. Last year, the new Labour Government fulfilled the pledge to hold an early review of the road building programme. The M2 widening was contained within that programme and at the time we made representations to press the point about the delay and the effect that it could have on co-ordinating the concurrent construction that we had fought so hard to win. The matter was resolved and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport


and the Regions announced that the M2 widening would go ahead. He rightly pointed out that the project was part of a strategic transport infrastructure, in that the M2 would link up with the CTRL station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford. Now, we face similar doubts about the other project.
The timing of those two nationally important transport schemes is vital to my area to limit disruption, keep down costs and to apply the principle of sustainable development. The CTRL has caused misery and blight in Kent—

Mr. Mackinlay: And in Essex.

Mr. Shaw: Indeed. There have been hard-fought battles for environmental safeguards, but I support the project and have always done so. We must build the link in its entirety, but I look forward to hearing some answers from my hon. Friend the Minister to my questions about concurrent construction.

Mr. Alan Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). His presentation of the argument, with which I disagree except for his strictures on the channel tunnel, was admirable and beautifully structured. However, this debate has seen the House at its most facile. It has consisted almost entirely of a series of clichés and trite remarks about the strategic plan, the need to send messages and so forth and national pride. I was interested to hear a Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), talking about national pride. All those points were synthesised in a series of mini soundbites which hon. Members uttered for the benefit of their local newspaper before they sharply and shortly left the Chamber.
The House has not been at its best during the debate. The most interesting contribution came from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who reminded us of the situation in 1983 when the channel tunnel project started, and of the colossal underestimation of building costs. Fortunately, because of the views of the then Prime Minister, the project did not attract public money and, therefore, it was the banks that took a terrific bath, which everyone enjoyed.
Now, we are faced with precisely the same situation: the contractor grossly overestimated traffic, and got the contract by one means or another, but almost immediately got into difficulties and has to be bailed out. It is perfectly clear that the private sector will not bail the contractor out, and the Deputy Prime Minister implied in his late-night statement that, if necessary, the taxpayer would foot the bill.
I caution the House against blithely accepting that. The sum involved is £8 billion—at the moment. We all know that figure could easily double. The House should consider this: on one hand, we have a colossal and environmentally damaging project, the real benefits of which no hon. Member has quantified; on the other, we have the putative expenditure of £8 billion of public money, which will probably increase to £16 billion. Hon. Members should ask themselves whether it would be better spent elsewhere, not on the usual clichés such

as schools and hospitals, but on the transport system, and the rail network in particular. We should also ask what we would get for £16 billion, as an alternative to this ludicrous and megalomaniac project to drive a new rail link.
The trains run perfectly well at the moment. Because this is an unprogressive, slightly reactionary argument, hon. Members on both sides of the House regard it with mirth, but it is practical. I do not have time to develop my argument, but I say this: the money has been notionally ring fenced, so we should consider what other ways there may be of putting into the transport system.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: We are always pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who has put the alternative view on these matters.
The channel tunnel rail link was announced in February 1996, and there was enthusiasm for and commitment to a project that would be fundamental to the economic enhancement of the south-east of England and the nation as a whole. Conservative Members still believe in the project, retain the same enthusiasm for it and think that it will bring benefits. We share that enthusiasm with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), and I congratulate him on securing the debate and on the balanced way in which he made his arguments.
We support the Government's attempt to find a solution to this problem. The project was never going to be easy to complete, and we wish them well. Many people have been embarrassed to travel through France at high speed, only to trundle across Kent at a gentlemanly speed. However, no contrast is more marked than that between north-western France and south-eastern England. The Picardie region of France is flat and empty, and the construction of the railway was not a technical or a financial challenge. In contrast, the route through Kent traverses some of England's most beautiful countryside and passes close to a substantial number of communities. They, and affected London communities, commented vociferously on the project during the passage of the legislation through the House.
Scrutiny of the Bill was intense, with a Select Committee considering thousands of petitions. The agreed route had the support of the vast majority and provided a much-needed framework for the economic regeneration of east London. There is to be a station at Stratford, and a special link to King's Cross and St. Pancras to provide a direct twin-track connection between the CTRL and the west coast main line.
The consortium that won the competition to construct the CTRL was London and Continental Railways, a partnership of six of the nation's leading companies: Ove Arup and Partners, Bechtel Ltd., Sir William Halcrow and Partners, the National Express Group, the Virgin Group and SG Warburg and Co. The key criteria for the evaluation of bids were the size and timing of the Government's financial contribution and the risk that each bidder was prepared to accept. The LCR bid was successful: it needed millions of pounds less in subsidy than the bid of its rival, Eurorail.
Some people say that the project was given too little public subsidy. The then Labour Opposition made it clear that they considered the public subsidy to be too high, yet at the same time they believed that there should have been a public-private partnership with most of the assets given to LCR remaining in public hands. That ignores the fact that, under any public-private partnership, Government subsidy would have been inevitable and would have entailed an even greater public subsidy we are likely to end up with.
Faced with the harsh realities of office, the Deputy Prime Minister's initial reaction was to resist the further use of public funds, no doubt with encouragement from the Treasury. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the main factor behind the current impasse was the passenger forecast of London and Continental Railways. When the bid was made, the annual passenger projection was 9 million; today, it is only 6 million. The forecasts were put forward by the best experts in the country, but no one could be certain about future passenger numbers and all estimates are subject to a degree of error.
Although LCR clearly overestimated the number of passengers, it is probable that the channel tunnel fire had something to do with that inaccuracy: a six-month delay and a reduced service cannot have helped in marketing the project. The good news is that passenger numbers continue to increase. We should retain our optimism that targets will be hit, albeit late: not even a revised scheme will work if they are not.
LCR is not in a position to proceed, because it cannot raise the necessary funds. We share the view of many people that the proposed route should not be altered. To alter it would require the reopening of the whole inquiry and would cause further unacceptable delays. There is every possibility that a two-phase solution may be found, with Railtrack, in a joint venture with LCR, constructing phase 1 from Cheriton to Ebbsfleet station by 2002, and phase 2 from Ebbsfleet to St. Pancras by 2005.
Despite the opposition of the Local Government Association and others, we give that solution a cautious welcome if it is to be the only basis for a successful outcome. I say to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms)—and, indeed, to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who ably represented Newham council—that there may be a gulf between what he wants and what is achievable. He will have to face up to the realities.
We understand that phase 1 could cost about £2 billion, with Railtrack playing a major role. Such a tremendous achievement by Railtrack would confirm the previous Government's decision to privatise the company, leaving it as a strong, well-financed company which can pick up such projects at relatively short notice and make something of them. The whole House will agree that that is a tribute to the previous Government's privatisation policy.
The question of running Eurostar remains to be solved. Although the Deputy Prime Minister, egged on by Labour Members, was excited by the thought of taking the trains back into public ownership, the change in culture brought about by the previous Government will lead him to conclude that a private solution remains the best bet.
One of the more stupid suggested alternatives is the resurrection of the Central Railway scheme which was decisively rejected by the House in July 1996. The proposal was to drive a railway line from the tunnel through the heart of London, causing massive disruption as it went. I urge the Government, if they need urging, not to reintroduce that proposal.
Notwithstanding the deep complexities that remain and the need to find a solution to Eurostar's loss making, the main aim must be for all options to be explored to allow the project to go ahead. The failure of the project would be a great blow, not only to the rail link, which is an important integrated transport project, but to the much-needed regeneration of east London. We offer the Government our support.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for his support, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on obtaining the debate. As others have said, we are grateful to him for giving us this opportunity. The channel tunnel rail link has probably not had such a high public profile since the idea was launched, and it is a pity that such a level of interest has been generated for all the wrong reasons.
No one would dispute the fact that all the speeches this morning—with, perhaps, the exception of the somewhat curious contribution of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark)—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) points out from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman has just left the Chamber—presumably to publish his soundbite press release, an action for which he criticised other hon. Members in his speech.
In the main, the speeches have been both serious and informed. The importance of the CTRL, not just as a high-speed link with Europe but for its regeneration potential, was stressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It may assist hon. Members, however, if I summarise the events of the past six weeks, and explain how matters now stand.
London and Continental Railways formally notified my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 28 January that it would be unable to meet the terms of its development agreement with the Government without the injection of some £1.2 billion of public subsidy over the next 10 years. That £1.2 billion was on top of the £1.8 billion of taxpayers' money that had already been committed. It did not include the public assets that were also part of the development agreement, which have been estimated to be in the region of £5 billion.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister rejected the proposal. He has left no one in any doubt that he wants the development of high-speed connections to Europe, but not at any price. I trust that that would reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who, regrettably, is not present. At a time when fiscal prudence is needed, it would be irresponsible—almost unthinkable—to commit such large additional sums of taxpayers' money, no matter how strong the wish for improved links.
LCR asked for more money because it vastly overestimated the number of passengers who would be travelling on Eurostar by now. The development agreement made those Eurostar projections a cornerstone of LCR's plans for raising project finance. The then Government and LCR should have realised that the forecasts were overblown and unrealistic, but they did not. That was a serious misjudgment, and the present Government should not and will not simply bail LCR out.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister came to the House with all speed, having heard LCR admit that it could not meet its obligations under the development agreement. As he explained in his statement on 28 January, the development agreement with LCR allowed for a 30-day period during which LCR could present revised financing proposals. LCR's shareholders subsequently constructed a framework of proposals, which they put to my right hon. Friend last week. The shareholders envisaged a role for Railtrack. After careful consideration, my right hon. Friend agreed to grant a further extension of the cure period to allow LCR more time in which to flesh out its ideas. The revised deadline is 31 March.
As my right hon. Friend intimated on 28 January, we would like LCR to come up with a solution allowing it to meet its obligations under the development agreement. Against the contingency that no satisfactory solution will materialise, we are still working to provide for an orderly transfer of Eurostar UK Ltd. to the public sector, as is required if the development agreement is terminated. Let me assure the hon. Member for Croydon, South that that would obtain whichever party was in power. It is part of the development agreement that was worked out and signed by the Conservative Government.
I am afraid that I cannot say much more about the point that LCR has reached. Its proposals simply are not developed enough. However, there has been considerable speculation in the press, and I want to put some of what has been reported in context.
There has been much talk of white knights galloping to the rescue. Given the size of the project, it is not surprising that organisations wish to become involved, but the formal position is that the Government have a contract with LCR and no one else. If LCR chooses to bring in other partners, that may happen, but only with the Government's approval. As I have said, it appears that LCR sees a role for Railtrack in the new structure that it is drawing up, but that is its business.
Much has also been written about the notion of phasing the construction of the link. It is important to remember that Parliament authorised a railway between Cheriton and St. Pancras which follows a very carefully defined alignment. Our contract with LCR requires the construction of the entire railway approved by Parliament. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1997 envisages

a whole line from St. Pancras to the channel tunnel, so there must be an intention to build all of it when the powers are used. In case there is any doubt, let me stress that the environmental standards that have been set for the link will not be compromised. I trust that that reassures hon. Members who have expressed concerns this morning.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefits that would be derived from making the link go all the way to St. Pancras would greatly help to regenerate areas such as South Yorkshire, which have suffered incredible manufacturing and industrial decline over the past few years?

Ms Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The issue of regeneration inherent in the building of the line has been mentioned by all hon. Members this morning.
The excitement in the media has prompted an interesting and widespread public debate about the rail link. That reminds us just how many parties have an interest in the CTRL—partly because, as many hon. Members pointed out this morning, it is not simply a transport project. The key reason for routing it via the Thames gateway—also known as the east Thames corridor—was that stations along it could act as focal points for regeneration. The theme of regeneration has run through all the speeches this morning. In fact, the £1.8 billion of public subsidy promised in the development agreement with LCR was justified in part by the regeneration benefits.
Concern has been expressed that regeneration may be forgotten in decisions on the rail link. I assure hon. Members that it will not. In the last few weeks, the problems of the rail link have elicited views from those interested in each of the stations, and also from those concerned with access to the regions—such as my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town, for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) and for East Ham (Mr. Timms), and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green).
Later this month, I shall be chairing a meeting of all local authorities affected in order to discuss their concerns. They will include Kent county council, which I trust will reassure the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I strongly agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about that intervention by a member of the Cabinet when the agreement was signed by the last Government.
I am aware that there is considerable concern that delays to the CTRL may jeopardise regeneration in London and Kent. As hon. Members will know, the CTRL has been seen as the vehicle for a number of regeneration initiatives, all of which have been mentioned this morning. Ebbsfleet station is the main node for regeneration of the eastern part of the Thames gateway. Substantial development is already taking place, but the rail link station is regarded as key to the redevelopment of some 2,200 acres of land, which has nearly all been used previously.
Stratford is the main node at the other end of the Thames gateway. Here the concept is of development on derelict or under-used land that can be of sufficient scale to act as a catalyst for other redevelopment on smaller


sites in the general area. Stratford is also complementary to regional interests because it is proposed that trains can call there before running through to the west coast main line, without incurring the time penalty of having to stop at St. Pancras and reverse out again.
There is also the regeneration created by the rail link and Thameslink 2000 at St. Pancras. Seventy acres are available for redevelopment in one of the last potential areas on the fringes of central London.
As I am rapidly running out of time, may I say that I shall write to hon. Members on the issues to which they drew my attention. The hon. Member for Ashford and my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), for Gillingham and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) have mentioned blight issues. The hon. Member for Ashford also mentioned freight and commercial confidentiality.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on to the debate on the benefit integrity project.

Benefit Integrity Project

11 am

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Many hon. Members have approached me to say that they want to participate in the debate so, despite the fact that I have briefings from organisations and individuals with which I could detain the House all day, I shall try to condense my remarks. This is a matter that interests all of us as constituency Members of Parliament and which we would wish to debate constructively.
The benefit integrity project was established after a survey of 1,135 people claiming disability living allowance, the report of which was published in January 1997. Forty interviewers carried out about 30 home visits each of adult or child recipients of disability living allowance. That project was undertaken when people were giving voice to fears about social security fraud. I, too, detected an undercurrent of feeling on the subject. However, snapshot assessments were made of individuals and little expertise was involved in the adjudication.
There was no follow-up of the 1.5 per cent. of cases that were designated confirmed fraud in the 1997 report. No prosecutions were made and no benefits were stopped. That suggested that people who were receiving disability living allowance were doing so because of their needs and that they were not doing so fraudulently, as the then Government feared.
Indeed, on 13 January 1998, when Baroness Hollis of Heigham, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, first reported on the BIP findings, she said in another place:
I am happy to confirm that the benefit integrity project has revealed no cases of confirmed fraud."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 936.]
That finding was based on the receipt of about 30,000 replies from disabled people.
I therefore believe that at this stage we should be considering not the fraud issue, but the needs issue—the needs of the people involved.
More than 40,000 people have since been interviewed. According to a parliamentary reply that I have received, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency estimates that, in the financial year 1997–98, savings of £15.8 million may be made. Subsequently, 311 appeals have been received; as yet there are no figures on success rates.
As part of the benefit integrity project, another 400,000 people are to be interviewed in the next four years. My deepest concern is that fear and distrust have emerged in the community as a result of the project. Individual cases have been highlighted on television and in newspapers. I shall not rehearse all those cases, but every case that is highlighted sends a tremor of fear through other individuals who may be in similar circumstances and there is genuine anxiety that the project is Treasury led, not needs led.

Mr. Simon Burns: Yes.

Mrs. Ewing: Although I hear Conservative Members saying yes, I remind them that the Conservative Government established the benefit integrity project.
All this is set against the background of an overall review of the social security system, but people who are in receipt of disability living allowance feel that they have now been singled out for a specific review.
I remind the House that many other important benefits—such as housing benefit and income support—hinge on disability living allowance. If at any time DLA is discontinued, those other benefits are discontinued and although, after a review or an appeal, the disability living allowance may be backdated, those other items of support to families are not backdated, so a great deal of distress results.
There can be a sudden drop in household income—and we must all budget according to our household income. This is a very difficult situation for many disabled people to be in. The review and appeal procedures are long and complex. Every hon. Member must have been involved in many such cases. We hope that our intervention will speed things up for the person involved, but I often wonder about the people who do not approach their Member of Parliament.
Other people are worried that, for them, reassessment may mean a return to residential care. We have all worked hard to try to ensure that care in the community works. Many people who, after being institutionalised for years, have emerged and rely on care in the community, are being reassessed. They fear that they may have to return to permanent residential care.
My excellent local citizens advice bureau in Moray experienced a threefold increase in inquiries about disability between 1996–97 and 1997–98. I am sure that that increase is mirrored elsewhere. It is a sign of the anxiety that exists. I worry about what is happening in places where there are no welfare rights workers, citizens advice bureaux, or people to whom people can turn.
The basic aim of disability living allowance was to give dignity and decency to people who suffer from disability, which comes in many different forms. I want, in a constructive speech, to make some proposals to the Government. First, I want to comment on the important issue of the assessment mechanisms.
In reply to a parliamentary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), the Secretary of State for Social Security said of decisions resulting in reduction or removal of entitlement to DLA:
there will always be additional evidence to support the decision"—[Official Report, 9 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 76.]
Interestingly, I found in my mail today a letter, dated 2 March, from the Secretary of State, in which some of these issues are raised. Immodestly, I should like to think that the prospect of the debate may have stimulated the writing of that letter, but I hope that this important letter has been circulated, not only to all hon. Members, but to representatives of voluntary organisations who are deeply involved in this crisis.
Having had only about 15 minutes to look through the letter, I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is to reply to the debate, to ensure that we have a detailed expansion of that letter. I also ask him to confirm that there will definitely be guarantees for those who want to ensure that medical evidence is submitted when decisions are taken that may result in reduction or removal of entitlement, because many of the

issues pertaining to DLA are cocooned by the issue of medical entitlement. Assessment seems to take little account of day-to-day changes in the condition of many disabled people. In response to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside, Peter Mathison of the Benefits Agency stated:
The additional information may be factual medical evidence from a GP, hospital or other health care professional, a full medical examination by a qualified medical practitioner or information from a carer. The most appropriate source of additional evidence will be used in light of the individual circumstances of the case.
That does not guarantee a full medical assessment, which is what I seek.
Claimants do not always receive clear advice on issues pertaining to the project, such as the information that they may have advisers present. They may be advised that someone may be present but a claimant could take along a next door neighbour, a family member or a friend and not necessarily someone with the knowledge to advise them on how to respond to questions and state exactly what is being sought. It is not made clear that people can have access to previous claim forms against which they can compare their present circumstances to see whether there has been any change. In most cases, there is a deterioration. People also have a right to delay an interview until a more suitable time.
Information should be clearer for people who are being reassessed, whether it is provided in forms or by agency representatives who visit them. There are many public service advertisements on television; perhaps the Government could examine the clarity of the advertising on this subject. The training for visiting officers could be improved. We should aim for best standards and best training. Some people receive only half a day's training while others are trained for up to four days. In a letter to me, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency stated that there was no requirement for visiting officers to have medical knowledge.
Adjudication officers must look beyond the bald statements that sometimes appear on forms and they should always err on the side of the claimant rather than on the side of reducing benefits. It has been suggested that a disability benefits task force could bring together the expertise of voluntary groups. Over the past two days, I have met representatives from no fewer than nine such groups. Their expertise, with that of welfare advisers, could be brought to the heart of the Department of Social Security and to the heart of government. The people in those voluntary groups deal with people's day-to-day problems.
Perhaps the Minister can advise me on exemptions. Many organisations have told me that there is evidence that people who should be exempt from review have been reviewed. I have a list of the exemptions. What criteria can be established to ensure that people on the exempt list are not subjected to further review? Is there a possibility of extending the exempt list? I have received from the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust a request for its clients to be considered for exemption. I need not go into detail, but all hon. Members will appreciate that people with cystic fibrosis fluctuate between well-being and illness. That is also the pattern of many other illnesses, and I hope that that can be considered. I should like to know how the criteria for exemptions are established and how they can be expanded.
I intend to be brief because other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside wish to take part in the debate. I have highlighted only a few of the problems that are associated with the benefit integrity project. My final recommendation is, I think, endorsed by the vast majority of the organisations that work with disabled people. It is that the project should be suspended, at least for a time, to allay the fears of those who are most vulnerable and to give us all an opportunity to try to ensure that the disability living allowance is targeted at those who need it most so that no one has to endure the fear that is endured by many of my constituents.
I understand that the representatives of the Disability Benefits Consortium met the Prime Minister on 16 February to discuss that issue and that it was stated that it would be considered. Perhaps in responding to the debate the Minister will say whether the Department is considering the suspension of the project and whether we can expect an early announcement on that.

Mr. Terry Rooney: The debate is long overdue. I am sure that every hon. Member has been inundated with letters and telephone calls. It is important to understand how we reached the present situation. When disability living allowance was introduced in 1992, it was generally regarded as good news for disabled people because it included lower immobility and care components. I pay tribute to the former right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, Sir Nicholas Scott, for his work in that arena. The new arrangements ensured that, in the first year, there were some 700,000 new claimants. Each year since there have been about 300,000 new claimants. That is a tribute to the scope of the benefit, but it constitutes a tremendous work load.
Hon. Members who were here in 1992 to 1994 remember the chaos over disability living allowance. There were massive delays, backlogs and complaints about claims not being processed. Hotlines were set up so that hon. Members could get through to the Benefits Agency, although the public could not. At one stage, about 800 temporary staff were drafted in from social security offices to try to deal with the problems. Care in the community was introduced in 1992; that led to a huge number of people being taken out of institutional care and placed in the community. Because they were no longer in institutional care, they were entitled to disability living allowance.
Because of all those factors, the Benefits Agency was grinding to a halt and somewhere along the line there was a ministerial nod and a wink to the effect that unless claims were patently invalid they should be approved simply to get rid of the backlog. That is part of the reason for the current problems. It cannot be overstated that the problems with disability living allowance relate to management and departmental error and not to disability fraud. The problem has been around for a long time and it has not been addressed either by the former Government or, so far, I am sorry to say, by the present Government.
By the end of last year, there were some 4 million claimants for disability living allowance and attendance allowance compared with 1.7 million under the old

1991 scheme. In one sense, the system has worked because the benefit has gone to many more people. I hope that it has done some good.
Of course, the previous Government panicked. In 1995, they said that the number claiming invalidity benefit had rocketed and that something had to be done about it. They introduced incapacity benefit as a way of cutting benefits for the sick, but they knew that they could not do the same with disability living allowance because there would be an outcry. They had to look for a way to curb the growing number of claimants without causing an outcry. Using some dubious evidence from the National Audit Office, combined with some reasonable evidence from the Department, they decided that there were significant errors in the system and set up the benefit integrity project to deal with them.
No training was provided for the people who were sent to visit claimants, but claimants were assured that the visiting officers were not the decision makers. That is correct, because decisions are taken by an adjudication officer—but he makes his decision based on the information on the claim form, which is the information extracted from the claimant by the visiting officer. The claimant has no idea how what they have said will be construed. Generally, the claim form is filled in by the visiting officer—the claimant simply signs it—so in fact the visiting officer has a significant input into the final decision. The failure to provide any training for visiting officers was criminal.
DLA is a self-assessment benefit, and some would say rightly so. If one third of the working population have self-assessment for their tax contributions, perhaps it is right for claimants to have some element of self-assessment for what they claim, but the capacity for error is enormous. Very few of us are sufficiently medically skilled to describe how an affliction of disability affects our daily lives. We would be hard put to do that. Many of my hon. Friends have afflictions, but I shall not talk about them today.
There is enormous room for error because people are not necessarily able to determine how their condition has changed over the years—whether for better or for worse. There are clear cases of people who should receive benefit for life, but the very nature of disability means that some people will get worse or better. It is virtually impossible for an individual to judge when he has crossed the line between entitlement and disentitlement.
Where should we go from here? A number of actions are required. I welcome the two announcements made by the Government during the past month. They go a long way, but we need to go much further. The claim and renewal forms need to be redesigned to make them much simpler and clearer so that claimants can more easily determine their entitlements. There is an argument for shorter award periods. One matter of concern is the number of lifetime awards that have been found to be wrong in some respect. A review period of, perhaps, two years might help to prevent many of the problems that have recently been prevalent.
There needs to be significant investment in staff training—and not only for visiting officers. I know that some people dispute the figures, but if they are correct some 50,000 cases have been wrongly assessed. That raises serious questions about not only the management


of the unit, but the people making the original decisions. The evidence is that the training programme has not been good enough.
It is important to have people in local offices so that they can give advice and liaise with local disability groups. They can talk to claimants and try to get around the problems. That would be far better than the present remote operation at Blackpool, which deals with people only by mail or telephone. The personal touch can sort out many problems.
We need an absolute commitment that the project is not and never has been a cuts-led exercise. The purpose of the exercise should be to ensure that people get their entitlement. I have not heard anyone dispute the qualifying criteria for disability living allowance and I hope that we never change them, but there is a major problem with matching the entitlement to the criteria. The exercise should be about getting that right.
We should recognise that much of the problem lies within the DLA unit, not with claimants. Fraud is not an issue in the payment of DLA. There will always be the odd case of fraud, but fraud is not causing the problems with over or underpayment; the problem is departmental errors—and responsibility lies first with the DLA management unit, but also with us, as parliamentarians, for not getting it right in the first place.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on bringing this important and timely debate to the Floor of the House. There is obvious concern, across the parties, about constituency cases.
As a member of the all-party disablement group, during the past few months I have been twice to see the Secretary of State on this issue. I reiterate the request to the Secretary of State, made today by Lord Ashley, the chairman of the group, for a moratorium on the benefit integrity project. Although the Secretary of State has announced some changes during the past few weeks, there is still a great deal of confusion—not only among those who have had their claims assessed, but among those who are literally waiting for the knock at the door. Many people with lifetime benefit are anxious about the future. Although they have the words, "lifetime benefit" written on their benefit books, we have not yet been able to get an assurance from the Secretary of State that the benefit will be for life.
A moratorium is needed to give the Government time fully to revisit the way the project works. When disability groups visited the Department last September, at the Secretary of State's invitation, to discuss the benefit integrity project, they thought that they would have an input into how the policy would be implemented. Instead, they found that the project was already under way. Although they had a great deal of expertise and advice to offer the Government, they were too late to make that vital input into the way the policy would be implemented.
I want to raise a few of the issues that worry people who are subject to scrutiny. It is a fact that people are entitled to see the original documentation that they filled in when they first made their claim. I advise all my constituents to ask for the necessary paperwork either to be sent to them or to be brought to their homes if they are to receive a home visit. To date, among those who have

written to me expressing concern about the way their cases have been handled, I have yet to find one person who has been offered that documentation.
There should be an obligation on the Benefits Agency to ensure that people are aware of their rights so that they have the opportunity, in advance of an interview, to look at what they wrote when they filled in the original application form many years ago. They are not voluntarily being given that opportunity, and that is wrong.
The Secretary of State has now said that the decision on whether a benefit is to be taken away or reduced will not be made arbitrarily on the basis of information provided by the claimant but that there will need to be some further input. It has been suggested that general practitioners should have an input. I would not disagree with that, but it presents some problems.
People with very long-standing disability—such as those with chronic arthritis who, sadly, usually do not enjoy a significant increase in their mobility for the rest of their lives—may be seen by their general practitioner only occasionally. Very often, an occupational therapist is the person who can best identify the state of their mobility and what, practically, they can or cannot do. I hope that we shall not create an arbitrary system in which a GP who may occasionally see someone in a surgery for five minutes is asked to submit evidence when the most appropriate person to submit evidence is an occupational therapist who has a much closer working relationship with the claimant.
I have asked the Secretary of State—and have now received a written reply from Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency—about people who, since the project began, have lost the mobility component of their disability living allowance, which was often used to fund their agreement with Motability. To my certain knowledge—in my constituency—three people have had to return their car because they cannot afford to make the payment. According to Mr. Mathison, there will be no retrospective examination of the cases of those who have already been through what has been an absolutely harrowing experience.
Re-examining those cases would be a matter not only of restoring benefits, because some of the people involved have now had to take legal advice—adding to their anxieties—to try to restore their benefit. They will also have the problem of determining how to find a deposit for a car if their benefit is reinstated. I urge the Minister to deal, in his reply, with those very real practical problems.
If the Secretary of State has recognised that there are problems with how the integrity project is being conducted, she must surely accept the need to examine the cases of those who have lost benefit since the scheme began and to determine how they should be compensated, particularly when they have suffered the loss of a vehicle. Even if some of those people receive tomorrow the good news that the benefit is to be restored, it would be a very long time before they could save up a deposit to get another car. Such practical problems lead hon. Members on both sides of the House to ask the Minister yet again, please let us have a moratorium while these issues are sorted out.
The hon. Member for Moray mentioned training, which is critical. If the Secretary of State is now admitting that GPs and others with professional medical advice should have an input into dealing with these cases, surely it


cannot be right that someone with absolutely no medical training—indeed, with only a few hours training on how to tick the boxes on a form—can go into someone's home and remove a benefit that is critical to their everyday well-being.
I welcome this debate and hope that it will give Ministers another opportunity to reconsider very genuine and reasonable requests from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The all-party disablement group heard at our most recent meeting with the Secretary of State that finalisation of the benefits review and of the benefit integrity project is unlikely for some months, which simply means that the agony will be prolonged for those who are waiting to discover whether they can retain their benefit.
We have asked for a moratorium not because we do not want to eliminate fraud—of course we do—but because the Government have gone helter-skelter down one path with one objective. There must be a balancing of fairness and justice for those who have already suffered great pain and mental anguish about how the project has been conducted and for those who are waiting for their turn.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: There are several reasons why I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate: because my constituency has a higher than average number of disabled and elderly people; because of the concentration of benefit offices in and around my constituency, including the disability living allowance offices at Warbreck house, which have already been mentioned in the debate; and because of the number of complaints that I—like many hon. Members—have received in my surgery about the operation of the benefit integrity project.
I feel as though I have a two-way mirror on the project's operation. Like many hon. Members, I see its impact on recipients, who may have lost benefit or had it reduced, but I also see it also through the eyes of many of my constituents who are employees at the disability living allowance offices. It is important that tribute is paid to their hard work and dedication—often in very difficult circumstances, as hon. Members have said. I would not wish this debate or subsequent debates to turn into a Department of Social Security staff-bashing exercise, but significant aspects of the project's operation give me great concern.
The principles behind the review are unimpeachable. Who could be for fraud or against the incorrect awarding of benefits? I should, however, remind the House—as others have already—that Baroness Hollis said that the benefit integrity project has so far uncovered negligible evidence of fraud in DLA claims, yet benefits have been cut or reduced in between 15 and 18 per cent. of the cases that have been examined, eventually resulting, we are told, in cuts or reductions in 34,000 of the 400,000 cases that will be examined. The figures are startling and it is perfectly reasonable that we should more carefully examine the project's operation.
I do not want to repeat what hon. Members have already said, but the project has training deficiencies, particularly for adjudication officers, who often have

to make critical decisions based on second-hand information. Moreover, the forms are complex, amount to 30 pages and often pose a significant barrier for the people who fill them out, whether the visitor or the claimant—who may well be elderly and possibly confused. The forms complicate the task of obtaining correct information.
We must also examine the project's mechanisms. I can cite a specific example because my mother—who receives disability benefit because of osteoporosis—was visited by a project member. Although I was not there, I have been told that the visit went smoothly and was conducted courteously. However, as appeals have shown, something goes wrong in a significant minority of cases.
The chief executive of the Benefits Agency has been anxious to reassure hon. Members about problems with the project. On 4 January 1998, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), he soothingly wrote:
The onus for providing this evidence"—
on DLA—
lies with the customer. There has been a move away from the reliance on a medical assessment and more emphasis is placed upon a person's day to day care and mobility needs. The customer is considered best placed to know the practical effects of the disability."—[Official Report, 5 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 798.]
One might think that that is all very soothing and sensible but the reality is often different.
Many disabled people's—especially older disabled people's—pride sometimes leads them to understate, or at least to give an optimistic assessment of, their condition on a particular day, leading to an understatement of their condition on the forms. The Minister and his team should urgently examine that matter.
All hon. Members can cite specific examples from their constituencies; I should like to give only one. Since 1978, a lady in my constituency has received the higher rate mobility and care components of DLA because of serious problems, including osteoarthritis and a prolapsed disc for which she is receiving treatment at Victoria hospital, Blackpool and which entails a need for virtually full-time care.
After a home visit by the Benefits Agency in November 1997, a decision was made to award a low rate mobility component and a nil care component. That decision was made despite the fact that the lady's condition had worsened since 1994, as demonstrated by installation of a chairlift and a bedlift and by provision, by Lancashire county council social services, of weekly help.
There is an appeals process, but it is often extremely lengthy. Another constituent, who was deprived of disability living allowance, had to wait in the region of 11 months after two postponements of appeal. The appeal itself is something of a lottery and depends on a claimant's access to welfare rights advice. Furthermore, the training and composition of the tribunals is something on which the Government might have cause to reflect.
I welcome the safeguards that the Secretary of State announced to improve the accuracy of any decision on entitlement, although I note that in answer to a written question from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 2 March, it was emphasised that it was not to be retrospective.
It is incumbent on us to remind ourselves why the DLA was needed. It was needed because of pressures on community care and cuts to the budget, to which the


Royal National Institute for the Blind and other groups have referred, and because of the gross underclaiming of benefit in the 1980s. It is important that we do not believe that there is an enormous problem because of gross exaggeration. There may be exaggerations, but, as I said, there is limited evidence of fraud.
Ministers need to be extremely cautious about the progress of this project. Hon. Members should bear in mind the Child Support Agency fiasco. It was set up with the best intentions, but, far from catching the malingerers, it has often snared the innocent and, for that matter, the conscientious in its zeal to meet targets. Our welfare review may not be cuts driven, so it is rather rich of Opposition Members to remind us of the problems involved in this project when they were instrumental in putting it in place, but we should nevertheless have examined a little more carefully the bill of sale that we inherited from the previous Government. Perhaps we should have looked a little more closely at the country of origin before proceeding with the project quite so enthusiastically.
I urge the Government to review the project with the optimum care. I leave it to them to decide whether a moratorium is appropriate, but I warn Ministers that we are engaged in a very complex and delicate assessment of welfare reform. Our cuts may not be Treasury driven, unlike those of the Opposition, but it is extremely important that the wells of welfare reform are not polluted by a project that has been capricious in its operation and questionable in a significant minority of cases.

Mr. Mark Oaten: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity to debate such an important issue. All of us who hold regular surgeries recognise that there is great concern among disabled people. As my party's spokesman on disability, I have spoken to many people involved with this matter and I know that there is also great concern among the charities working in this sector.
I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) that we have the beginnings of the type of fiasco that we experienced with the Child Support Agency. As the number of appeals increase, and as the delays in managing those appeals grow, I am beginning to realise that unless the Government do more than simply tweak the issue, we shall have another CSA-type crisis on our hands. Having said that, the debate so far has been constructive, and I will make some suggestions about how the crisis can be solved.
I begin by welcoming the announcements that the Secretary of State has made over the past couple of months to the effect that she has recognised the need for a review. The letter that hon. Members received this week is certainly welcome. The Secretary of State tells us that the benefit integrity project is not
some sort of fraud drive",
and that clarification is certainly welcome. We are also told that fraud is not rife in disability living allowance claims—something which many of us knew, although it is nice to have it in writing. The letter also states that the Government want to listen to the experiences of claimants. Many in this sector have been concerned that the Government were not listening, so we welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's announcements in that respect. However, they do not go far enough.
At the moment, the Government are just tweaking at the edges of the project, but I believe that it needs to be halted. If the project continues as it is, it will end in a mire of inefficiency and injustice. The tragedy is that the BIP is undermining much of the good work that the Government are beginning to do elsewhere in the disability sector. It is creating a sense of mistrust.
I will draw the House's attention to four key areas of concern with the project. The first relates to the title itself. The name "benefit integrity project" implies a lack of integrity among claimants. This is not just window-dressing; there is a genuine concern that the thrust of the title is disrespectful to the people being reviewed. Clearly, disabled people want forms to ensure that there is value for money and that fraud is squeezed, but they are outraged by some of the labelling in the right-wing press which suggests that they are cheats. The very title of the project itself fuels that suspicion.
Secondly, the project is not being handled with the sensitivity that I am sure the Government wish. The level of errors within the project is alarming. I have had evidence of amputees being asked whether their condition has improved, as if the missing limb had grown back but they were keeping quiet about it. As of mid-February, the Department's own figures show that more than 400 severely disabled people, including 30 who are terminally ill, have been asked to take part in the project although they are clearly members of the groups that should never have been approached to do so.
The third concern relates to mobility. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) rightly pointed out, people who lose their car if the benefit is cut have major problems replacing it if their appeals are successful. However, it is not only the finding of a deposit that causes difficulties. There are two other factors that the Minister needs to bear in mind. People who are successful on appeal and get a car back have to spend considerable sums on it because they get a new car that needs to be adapted for their disability. In addition, they cannot claim back the costs of being housebound or of having to find other forms of transport while they were without a car.
Fourthly, the complexity of the forms also causes concern. I know that there have been moves to deal with this matter, but the forms are still too complicated. Indeed, the chief executive of RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—told me yesterday that it took him a whole weekend to fill out his own DLA form even though he understands the system and is used to filling out forms.
How can the Government restore confidence? I believe that the Secretary of State wishes to do that, and it is interesting that in her letter to hon. Members this week, she said three times, I think, that she was looking for suggestions about the way forward. We welcome that. I have some suggestions to get the project back on track.
As other hon. Members have suggested, we need to abandon the project as it stands. We then need to put in place a system of consulting disablement groups and disabled people on what they would like in peace of the review. If the Government consulted those organisations, they would find widespread acceptance of the need for some form of review, but disability groups wish to have a say about how it is carried out. As I said, a good starting


point to rebuild confidence would be a more neutral title. Disabled people have won the right to more respect than the term "benefit integrity project" implies.
One of the problems with the project is that it seeks to do two things at once—to tackle fraud and to review benefits. However, it has failed to do either. Any new system should formally separate measures to combat fraud and error and measures to introduce a review of benefits. It must be possible in a new system to deal with fraud and value-for-money issues via a separate fraud unit or an efficiency drive that does not involve every interview with disabled people being fraud driven. Once we have removed the fraud and value-for-money aspect from the review process, we can set up a separate new system for reviewing benefits with a new and positive aim behind it. It should be an on-going system, not a one-off project that few claimants find easy to accept or understand. It should review benefits constantly and have a new thrust behind it.
Currently, we have a wasted opportunity. Interviews are taking place up and down the country at great cost to the taxpayer, yet they could achieve so much more. It is an opportunity to sit down with disabled people and talk about a range of issues. That is happening now, while other agencies are doing the same. It is crazy for a disabled person to be assessed three or four times for different purposes by different agencies. Streamlining that under a new review system would be a great benefit.
Any new system should ensure that reviews are conducted to ensure that people receive their full entitlement. They should not be focused, as they are currently, on the recipients of higher-level benefits. By focusing on those receiving higher benefits, one invites the assumption that benefits are likely to be adjusted downwards.
The boundary between review and advice should be shifted in the direction of advice. Reviews should be tailored much more closely to individual needs. We know that some conditions—amputations, polio and loss of vision—are not likely to improve, so the people affected do not need such frequent reviews.
Another way in which to restore confidence in the system would be to give claimants a clear date on which their benefit will be reviewed when they are first awarded a benefit entitlement. That would overcome the problem of someone who believes they have a benefit for life finding out later that it is subject to review.
The groups to whom I have spoken in the disability sector have made clear to me and, I believe, to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the grief and anxiety being caused by the current process. I have heard of charities setting up helplines where staff have been talking to many callers who are often in tears. Staff go home at the end of the day shattered by the experience. It need not be like that.
Confidence in the Government's approach to welfare reform is, sadly, at an all-time low and confidence among disabled people in the benefits system is being shattered by this process. I believe that the Government can start to correct the problem today by announcing that they will halt the benefit integrity project. There is still time to do that. The project has years left to run and it is not too late to close a chapter on what was, after all, a failed Tory project in the first place. I urge the Government to

recreate something positive by consulting disabled people. They should announce today an end to the benefit integrity project.

Mr. Phil Hope: I welcome this timely debate introduced by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
Disability living allowance is an important benefit which is needed and valued by millions of disabled people. It provides direct help to individuals to meet their care and mobility needs. We have heard that it is a complicated benefit to assess because it is based on self-assessment, not of medical evidence of disability, but of people's needs for care and mobility. We know that the system is not working well now.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I received a report from the National Audit Office which pointed out that there were incorrect assessments of DLA to the tune of an estimated £499 million. The report also said—this is a little-known figure—that there could be potential underpayments of DLA of £227 million because claimants were understating their needs. We are seeing error on both sides of the argument. That being so, the Benefits Agency is not getting it right first time, on time, every time as it is intended to do. Clearly, there is a problem about the operation of DLA that needs to be addressed.
The benefit integrity project was designed to try to deal with some of those errors. It is a project which we inherited from the previous Administration and, from the outset, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there was no effort to provide the quality training and support necessary for the staff carrying out the assessments.
My consultations with local groups, such as Corby Council for the Disabled and the East-Northamptonshire Council for All Disabilities, have shown that things are not working well either in the original award of the allowance or in the way in which the benefit integrity project is working. It is unhelpful that people who are undergoing an individual process of review and are distressed by that are also picking up a negative feeling about the Government' s review of the welfare state. It is not helpful to taxpayers or claimants who need a welfare state to work effectively and efficiently in everybody's interests.
Although today's debate has been broadly constructive, we have heard from Opposition Members about people living in fear of a knock on the door in the night. That is at best unhelpful and at worst, is scaremongering by Opposition Members when the Government are making genuine efforts to put right the mess created by the same hon. Members.
There have been calls for the benefit integrity project to be suspended or abandoned, or for the setting up of a moratorium. I strongly advise my hon. Friend the Minister not to go down that route. What would we say to the 1,300 people who have had their benefits increased as a result of the project? We would have to say, "Sorry, you cannot have that increase." What would we say to the thousands of people represented by the estimated £227 million of underpayment? We would have to say, "Sorry, but there is no chance of having your benefit upgraded despite the fact that the DLA you have been awarded is wrong."
To abandon the project now, which was the request of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), would be to abandon those people who have not received the payments to which they were entitled, and I strongly advise against it.
We have heard a number of constructive proposals about how the project could be improved to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled and that we have a system that works in the interests of disabled people. I should like to hear some reassurance from the Minister that the conditions of entitlement to disability living allowance have not changed and that the benefit integrity project is not a cuts-led exercise, but is designed to get the right benefit to the right people. I want to know that, in future, disabled people will be treated properly and fairly, that the project will be put on a sound footing and that it will be carried out sensitively, with full and proper concern for each individual affected by it.
I welcome the new safeguards that have been introduced. I hope that we can see some real benefits—excuse the pun—coming through so that there is less error in the project and so that more people get the benefits to which they are entitled.
I should like to hear from the Minister some reassurance that consultation with disability groups is taking place at national as well as local level. Working in partnership with disabled people and with the groups and organisations that represent them is a good way in which to work.

Mr. Burns: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's point about consultation. Does he believe that many of the problems we have seen over the past six months would have been avoided if, in September last year, when the disabled groups were summoned to the Department of Social Security, it had been for a consultation—that is what they thought it would be—rather than simply to be told by the Government what was happening, and what would continue to happen?

Mr. Hope: No. The problems that we have seen over the past six months would have been dealt with if the original project had not been established by a Conservative Administration, without proper training or resources, and without any partnership or involvement with disabled people.
The reassurances from the Minister will be important for hon. Members, for disabled people and for the organisations that represent them. They will show that the Government are putting the project back on track after inheriting such a mess. Disabled people and their organisations want to know that the Government will be true to their pledge of wanting to see justice and equality for disabled people in this country.

Mrs. Theresa May: Like other speakers, I welcome this timely debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on having introduced a debate on such an important subject. Its importance is shown by the number of hon. Members who want to speak in recognition of the many complaints about the operation of the benefit integrity project that have been communicated to us via our postbags and constituency surgeries.
I should correct the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who made a disappointing and unfortunate speech. Although the initial sampling exercise in the review of disability living allowance was carried out under the previous Government, and the decision was taken to go ahead with the benefit integrity project as a result of that evidence, the project has been carried out by the current Government and the operation of the project is their responsibility. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman dismissed the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—that if the Government had consulted with disability organisations prior to carrying out the project, the results might have been very different.
Disability organisations are as keen as all of us to ensure first, that there is no fraud in the system and secondly, that people are paid the correct amount of benefit. As the hon. Member for Corby pointed out, some people are receiving less benefit than they are entitled to receive. We all accept that people should receive the correct level of benefit, and the disability organisations would be keen to work with the Government to ensure that the methodology used in the benefit integrity project will work properly. Those organisations know best what will work and how the system should operate.
It is important to point out to the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who commented on whether the current welfare reform was a cuts exercise, that one of the problems with the way in which the benefit integrity project is operating is that people with disabilities are made anxious on two scores. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, they are anxious about the possible knock on the door in connection with the project. Secondly, that feeling occurs against a background of general concern about what is to happen to disability benefits. That is a double whammy which makes people with disabilities feel great concern about their future benefits.
I mentioned the sampling exercise carried out under the previous Government which led to the estimate that incorrect overpayments were being made of slightly less than £500 million. I understand that current evidence indicates that that figure is an overstatement and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is true. I should also be grateful if the Minister could respond to several issues that have been raised by hon. Members today and by the all-party disablement group in its two meetings with the Secretary of State for Social Security. I was part of the group's delegation on both occasions.
Our first concern relates to those who have their benefit reduced or removed and who then appeal, and the question of what happens to them while their appeal is in process. Several hon. Members have commented on the fact that the appeal process is lengthy and on the difficulties that people suffer while going through that process. The all-party disablement group requested that the rules should be changed so that claimants can retain their previous benefits until their appeal is heard, thereby preventing the hardship that occasionally results under the current rules. We also raised the question of the operation of the mobility component and the implications for those who have cars under the Motability scheme. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond on those points.
The Secretary of State indicated a willingness to have exemptions listed on the covering letter, with a box that could be ticked by anyone who fell into one of the exempted categories so that the papers could be returned immediately. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that idea is to be put into practice. The all-party disablement group also raised with the Secretary of State the possibility of what was described as a "health warning" being attached to the covering letter, so that those who are completing the form are fully aware of the implications of doing so. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred to the pride that many people with disabilities feel and their desire to overstate their abilities on the form, but they must understand the implications and recognise that doing so may lead to their benefit being cut. The provision of a health warning would enable them to see the matter in an entirely different light.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned fraud, and I hope that we can get an unequivocal statement on that from the Minister today. There is real concern that several statements have given the public the impression, first, that the benefit integrity project is entirely about fraud and, secondly, that vast numbers of people are falsely claiming to be disabled, purely to get disability benefit. I hope that the Minister will give a categorical and unequivocal statement today that that is not the case, and that all the evidence that the Government have shows that the level of fraud is actually extremely low.
In the letter from the Secretary of State dated 2 March, which most of us received shortly before the debate started, she states:
Of the 40,000 or so cases examined up to the end of last year, around 9,000 people have had their entitlement adjusted.
As I understand it, that covers both upward and downward adjustment. She continues:
Some cases have been referred to the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service and around 40 are currently being investigated.
That is an extremely small figure. The evidence totally fails to support the impression that has been given in several statements that many people are fraudulently claiming disability living allowance, and it is imperative that a clear statement is made in the House today. We are concerned about the mechanism whereby the benefit integrity project operates, which is leading to cases of real hardship among people with disabilities who have had their benefit reduced or removed. Our concern is not vast fraud within the system, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point today.
When the all-party disablement group met the Secretary of State, we specifically asked her to consider suspending the benefit integrity project. The hon. Member for Corby should realise that it is not a question of preventing those who have so far been underclaiming and underpaid from getting the benefit to which they are entitled. The point is that the way in which the system is operating is causing real anxiety and real hardship, and it is necessary that the project should be suspended for a period so that its operation can be properly assessed. In today's debate, some excellent suggestions have been made about the way in which the project could be reformed to ensure that it operates fairly and justly. Part of that process should consist of consultation with disability organisations; they understand the problems and their input can ensure that the system works at grass-roots level.
Although the Secretary of State indicated to the all-party group that she would not suspend the project, it has been reported that the Prime Minister told the Disability Benefits Consortium that he would consider suspending it. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us which of those positions the Government will take. I trust that they will suspend the project for a period so that an independent review can be carried out and the right systems put in place. In that way, we can be sure that people with disabilities will receive the benefits that they genuinely need.

Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on securing this important debate, which has drawn together views, ideas, criticisms and comments from hon. Members on both sides. I hope that the Government will feel that the debate has been useful and helpful, as we try to sort out some of the problems that have emerged with the unit.
Comments from Labour Members, from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), and from hon. Members from other parties have shown that there is considerable concern in many parts of the country about the effects of the project at the sharp end. The Government have not handled it in the best way possible. There is great confusion, fear and consternation among people with disabilities and the pressure groups representing them as a result of increasing uncertainty about the Government's intentions on disability benefits and the actions of the unit. If anything positive is to come from the debate, we should have assurances from the Government that those who rely on those vital benefits will not have them cut because of Treasury-imposed spending targets.
The operation of the benefit integrity project over the past nine months is a prime example of the Government's haphazard and unsatisfactory approach to the issue. Under the previous Government, expenditure on disability and sickness benefits increased dramatically over 10 years from £7 billion a year to £20 billion. In 1992, the categories of people who could claim disability benefits were extended. The measure was accompanied by a successful publicity campaign, which increased people's awareness of the benefits to which they were entitled. Equally importantly, that was part of a process of trying to take away the stigma from claiming benefits—a problem which is particularly prevalent among the elderly and disabled people, who often do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled, out of pride or a feeling that they are begging for help. That is a misguided view. Politicians and others should do everything that they can do to remove that perceived stigma.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) seems to be unaware of the history of the unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead dealt with the point, but I should like to put the facts on record, because, as success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, they are being forgotten. The benefit integrity project was proposed by the previous Government, who set up a pilot survey, because it was crucial to ensure that the benefits system for disabled people was monitored and that the right benefits went to the right people. The results of that pilot survey came forward in January last year. The general election intervened before the unit, in its current modus


operandi, was put into place. That modus operandi was established by the current Government, not the previous one. That should not be forgotten by a Government notorious for spinning whatever line they want to avoid responsibility for their failures.
Under the Labour Government, the benefit integrity project has been turned into a purely cost-cutting vehicle for reducing expenditure on disability living allowance. That becomes clearer after even a limited examination of the project, which is targeted only at those on the highest or middle rate of the care component of DLA and the higher rate of the mobility component. It is clear that, after examination by the project, those on the highest rates of the two components can only have their benefits reduced. There is no way in which they could be increased. Limiting the scope of the BIP to those categories illustrates that it is part of the Government's policy of trying to reduce the benefits bill.
The Government's approach to disability benefits is in keeping with their overall approach to other aspects of welfare reform. It has become increasingly clear in the past few months that the Department of Social Security is working to the agenda of the Treasury and the Chancellor, which is designed to save a war chest for the Government to spend in the run-up to the next general election. The Government pay lip service to the rhetoric of an intellectually based welfare review which will seek to address the long-term problems of an escalating welfare budget. However, all that we have seen over the past nine months is a salami-slicing exercise for benefits picked by the Treasury, which has been implemented by the Department of Social Security on the orders of the Treasury.

Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No. I do not have much time.
The benefit integrity project is not the only means that the Government have used to target people with disabilities for savings on the benefit bill. In November, various proposals were leaked to the press, including the taxing, means-testing and time-limiting of certain disability benefits. There was also a proposal that the DLA cash benefit might be exchanged for care services administered by local authorities. We all understand the seriousness of the implications of such policies for disability benefits, particularly the DLA and disability working allowance. The principle behind those benefits is to level the playing field for those with benefits and those without by meeting the additional expenditure caused by the extra needs of people with disabilities. Denying someone those benefits would put them at a disadvantage and would eliminate the level playing field that we should all be seeking to create.
The leaking of such proposals and the floating of such rumours has done nothing but harm. There is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the issue, which the Government are doing little to allay. Only last week in the Social Security Select Committee, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Welfare Reform were unable to confirm or deny stories about the means-testing of DLA. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to confirm whether the Government plan to means-test DLA.
The operation of the unit under the current Government has been geared towards saving money. That has been carried out in several ways. We are grateful for the Secretary of State's announcement on 9 February of changes to the existing system. We also appreciate the letter dated 2 March, which we got yesterday afternoon, which also recognises that there have been serious problems with the administration of the system. In an appendix, it lists extra ways in which the Government hope to safeguard the operation and the work of the existing unit. No doubt the Minister will elaborate further on the contents of the letter and the Government's proposals.
As many hon. Members have said, the problem is too confused and difficult for the Government to be able to carry on with a piecemeal approach, tacking proposals on at the edges of a system that they recognise is failing. We should suspend the activities of the unit until all the piecemeal proposals and changes have been announced, and a fundamental review of the system and the aims and aspirations of the unit can be thrashed out properly. We can then start again with a system that does not spread fear, confusion and anxiety, but is targeted at the realistic and right aim of ensuring that the process is being monitored and that those who are entitled to benefits get the right amounts of the right benefits. Even if the Minister is not able to give an answer during the debate, I urge him to give serious consideration to that proposal and make an announcement as soon as possible. He should not dismiss the idea out of hand.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House about the benefit integrity project. I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on obtaining this debate on a matter of wide public interest. I also congratulate her on setting a constructive and helpful tone, which has generally been followed for the past hour and a half.
I acknowledge that the benefit integrity project has been the subject of debate, controversy and concern, much of which has been reflected in speeches made from both sides of the House. I have had a great many requests to respond in my summing up to many specific issues. I shall not be able to do so in the time available, but I give an assurance that all issues raised about the delivery of the project will rightly be given careful consideration. In the time available, I will clarify the reasons for the benefit integrity project and, equally importantly, lay to rest many of the fears about its purpose and intent. I shall look at the experience of the project to date, and set out how the Government have responded and will respond to that experience.
First, and most importantly, I want, through this debate, to reassure disabled people. The benefit integrity project is simply about ensuring that disabled people receive the right amount of disability living allowance—the amount to which they are entitled. It is not an anti-fraud drive; it is not a cuts exercise by another name; it is not part of the Government's wider agenda of welfare reform, or a precursor of it. It is concerned with disabled people and their entitlement to benefit under rules that Parliament has


laid down. No rules on the entitlement to DLA have been changed. The responsibility for decision making rests with the people who have always exercised that responsibility.

Mr. John Swinney: Will the Minister say why DLA has been singled out to be checked and clarified while other benefits have not? It leads to suspicion that the Government have some ulterior motive.

Mr. Denham: As I shall make clear, DLA has not been singled out in the process of action being taken on incorrectness and other problems in the Department of Social Security.
Guidance given to decision makers on the need to take into account all appropriate evidence remains unchanged. I want to reassure disabled people. We want to ensure that benefit payments are right. We want to act sensitively and we want people to have confidence in the actions taken as part of the project.
Why was the benefit integrity project initiated? I do not think that any Member would question the need to take action across all benefits to ensure that benefit payments are made to those—and only those—who have a legal entitlement to them. As the hon. Member for Moray said, we must, of course, recognise that even establishing that somebody is not entitled to benefit has an impact on their life, so the situation needs proper and sensitive treatment.
The previous Administration initiated a series of benefit reviews to establish the extent of error and fraud across all major benefits. In each benefit, the findings of the reviews have or will lead to appropriate changes in the way in which benefits are administered and entitlement is established. Disabled people and DLA recipients have not been singled out.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Denham: I will not give way because I have very limited time in which to answer at least some of the points raised.
The DLA benefit review was undertaken in 1996 and published in February 1997. It reported that 73 per cent. of people were receiving it at the correct rate at the time that they were visited, meaning that 27 per cent. of people were receiving DLA at an incorrect rate. Incorrectness may have arisen for a variety of reasons, and involved under-provision as well as overpayment. In line with other benefit reviews, the DLA review reported a headline estimate of fraud of 12.2 per cent. The sample was extrapolated to produce the estimate of fraud of about £499 million that has been used.
I should make it quite clear that it would be totally wrong to suggest that the majority of people receiving DLA are doing so fraudulently. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. I should go further. Although the benefit integrity project has broadly confirmed the level of incorrectness identified by the DLA benefit review, it has not sustained the suggested level of fraud. But—this is the critical point—even if the benefit review estimate of fraud can be debated, it none the less indicates a worrying level of incorrectness.
The benefit integrity project has broadly sustained the estimated level of incorrectness and has justified the decision to proceed with the project when we took office in May. I should make it clear that the BIP was already fully designed under the previous Administration—contrary to the history described by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—and we had to take some very early action to improve its design.
Hon. Members need to understand that the points that they raised about decision making relate not to the BIP, but to the fundamental nature of DLA as a benefit. It is a complex benefit. It is paid to provide help with the extra costs associated with a disabling condition. Entitlement is based on the effect of a disability, not purely on the fact that a person claiming benefit is disabled in some way. The same condition can, of course, affect individuals in very different ways. As part of the claiming process, we ask people to describe the effect of their disability on their daily life, and through an understanding of the need that they have for help with personal care and getting around, decisions are made about entitlement. The BIP uses the same process.
It is fundamental to the nature of DLA that we rely to a considerable degree—sometimes entirely—on the information that we ask people to provide about their daily lives. It is not easy for many people to describe accurately the precise levels of need which arise from their disability. That is not to say that people are setting out to mislead or exaggerate, although it is important that we recognise constraints in the assessment of DLA entitlement generally before we begin to look more closely at the operation of the benefit integrity project.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Denham: I hope that I can make some progress because I have some important points to cover.
I have already mentioned the difficulties that disabled people may have in recognising when to let us know that their circumstances have changed. The focus of the benefit integrity project was dictated by the findings of the benefit review, and is focused on groups of recipients who are thought to be the least likely to contact the Department about change. The House will, of course, recognise that there is a strong incentive for people to let us know when their needs increase, but less so as needs decrease, and even less if it is unclear when they should take such action.
The project results so far have underlined the need for the exercise. Up to the end of January, 55,000 cases had been examined and more than 12,000 people had had their benefit changed. Almost 1,300 people have seen an increase in their award, while some 4,000 people have moved off benefit altogether. Of the 44,000-plus cases with an on-going award of benefit that have so far been examined, 16 per cent. have resulted in change to the benefit paid. Some 48 per cent. of awards in renewal claims are being changed. In total, the level of incorrectness found, at 21 per cent., is broadly in line with the level of incorrectness found in the review. I should stress again that the project is seeking to establish current entitlement against current rules. None of the rules has changed.
In seeking to reassure the House that there is a sound basis for the benefit integrity project—the integrity, of course, refers to the integrity of our system, not to the


integrity of recipients—I do not want to give the impression that we are in any way complacent about the way in which the project is being carried out or the concerns of disabled people who receive DLA. It is essential that the project is carried out properly, sensitively and with full and proper concern for each individual disabled person who might be affected by it. Although I cannot comment on individual cases raised in the debate, I accept that we do not always get it right, despite our best intentions and—I genuinely believe—the best efforts of our staff to carry out their responsibilities properly and effectively.
From the outset, the Government have sought to address issues of concern, learn from the experience of the project and tackle problems that emerge. We are determined that disabled people should be dealt with properly and fairly, and that they should have sufficient information about what is required of them and the purpose of the exercise to allow them to provide the required level of information about the effect of their disability on their need for help with personal care and getting around. Most of all, we want the decisions that are made as a result of the project about benefit entitlement to be the right decisions.
When we inherited the project designed by the previous Administration, we discovered at the outset that no effort had been made to ensure that visiting officers had appropriate disability awareness training. The present Administration introduced that.
We have had several meetings at ministerial and official level to discuss the development of the project, and have recognised that some of the individuals contacted may not have understood the level of detail required about their daily lives. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 9 February that a new safeguard was being introduced. Details have been sent to hon. Members.
So far, we have kept the working of the project under constant review, and we shall continue to do so. We shall also continue to meet organisations of and for disabled people. It is important to understand that the project is about ensuring that disabled people receive the right amount of DLA—that to which they are entitled. I believe that the results so far endorse the need for the exercise, and that it would be difficult for us to stop taking action to secure the proper payment of benefits.

Irish People in Britain

Mr. John McDonnell: Astoundingly, this appears to be the first recorded debate in the history of the British Parliament specifically on the subject of the Irish community in Britain. That is all the more astounding because, as the House will be aware, Irish migration to Britain goes back as far as the first forays by Irish chieftains to Wales, during which they reputedly kidnapped a small boy who grew up to become our patron saint, Saint Patrick.
After the 12th century Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland, emigration escalated, and by the 1600s there were sizeable Irish communities in most major cities. Some of that migration was the inevitable and natural movement of peoples, but certainly over the past two centuries the growth in the numbers of Irish people coming to Britain was overwhelmingly a direct result of the colonial exploitation of Ireland—a process which included discriminatory measures that suppressed and destroyed whole sections of Ireland's economic base.
Racism and discrimination are also tools of colonial oppression. The denigration of the Irish has been used not only to justify colonial invasion and occupation but to reinforce oppression. Liz Curtis' s excellent book, "Nothing but the Same Old Story", charts the depiction of the Irish within British culture and the media as some brutish sub-species, from the earliest Norman tracts to the present-day Murdoch newspapers.
Over time, racism has been as effective a weapon of oppression as any sword or gun—more effective in some ways, because it is less overt and can even be internalised by the victims, undermining their feelings of self-worth.
Remarkably, however, until last year there had been no comprehensive investigation into discrimination experienced by the Irish community in Britain. Throughout the 1980s, a number of organisations, including the Federation of Irish Societies, the Irish in Britain Representation Group, the Action Group for Irish Youth and the Irish Women's Centre, campaigned to highlight the discrimination faced by the Irish in Britain.
Those organisations were joined by local authorities such as the Greater London council, Camden, Haringey and Lewisham, and the Association of London Authorities. To its credit, the Irish Post, under the editorship of Brendan McCluha and Donal Mooney, became the vehicle in which that anti-Irish racism was exposed.
The campaign culminated last year in the publication of an excellent and authoritative research project by Dr. Mary Hickman and Dr. Bronwen Walter, commissioned by the Commission for Racial Equality. The report examines the extent to which Irish people in Britain experience various forms of discrimination. I pay tribute to Herman Ouseley, the first chair of the CRE to take the issue of anti-Irish racism seriously.
To many, the results of the research project are startling. The researchers drew on the 1991 census data and consulted a wide range of organisations working within the Irish community. They also conducted a pilot


survey among the Irish population in Britain. They catalogued the inequality that Irish people have experienced, and described finding in many people of Irish origin
a powerful sense of hurt and unjustified exclusion from an equal place in British society.
The researchers demonstrated that
deep seated Irish stereotypes affected many areas of the lives of Irish people, including workplaces, access to housing, treatment at benefits offices and interactions with neighbours and the police.
Drawing on the census data, the research confirmed that the Irish in Britain experience a range of social disadvantages compared with the white indigenous population.
The findings revealed that the Irish experience lower than average rates of upward social mobility, and that their housing provision is of significantly lower standard than that of the white population, with twice the level of overcrowding and the worst amenities of any major ethnic group.
Of all the ethnic minorities in Britain, the Irish have the poorest record of physical and mental health. That finding has been reinforced recently by a research report in the British Journal of Psychiatry that revealed that Irish men are the only migrant group whose life expectancy worsens on emigration to England. Those excessive mortality and morbidity rates persist into the British-born children of Irish migrants.
The research study's survey of Irish community groups and advice agencies consolidated the results extrapolated from the statistical data with the views of those working at the sharp end of dealing with the problems faced by the Irish community.
The survey exposed a widespread denial of specific Irish needs and a refusal by statutory bodies to include an Irish dimension in consultation on, and the planning of, service delivery, including community care plans and housing investment strategy. It depicted the stereotyped responses and comments by service providers that meant that Irish concerns were not taken seriously, and included reports of harassment ranging from violent physical attack on Irish individuals and organisations to the everyday occurrence of verbal abuse.
Regrettably, the survey also revealed an element of police harassment, sometimes triggered by the hearing of Irish accents of names, and often associated with the use of the prevention of terrorism Acts.
The research programme went on to survey a cross-section of the Irish population in Britain, and the researchers concluded:
The most striking finding was the high levels of anti-Irish hostility routinely encountered by Irish people in Britain".
They revealed
a catalogue of demeaning treatment which built into a cumulative picture of normal levels of harassment, punctuated by a number of more frightening and aggressive acts".
The survey showed that all aspects of Irish people's lives were affected by racism. That was manifested in many ways. For example, 25 per cent. reported negative responses from the police, ranging from verbal abuse to assault, 24 per cent. described discriminatory treatment at benefit offices, and 79 per cent. recorded that they were

subjected to derogatory anti-Irish remarks, jokes and comments, which 70 per cent. of those surveyed found offensive.
Occasionally and increasingly, Irish people have resorted to legal action under the Race Relations Act 1976 to overcome racism and discrimination, and there is now a body of court and tribunal judgments against anti-Irish discriminatory practices. However, the survey found that the general response of Irish people when they encountered anti-Irish racism was to adopt a low profile or "heads down" approach.
That must not be the Government's response to the findings and recommendations of the research. We must develop a strategy that puts in place the policies, structures and resources that will enable us to take the first steps in eradicating anti-Irish racism in our community.
The CRE report and the contribution of many Irish community organisations to the debate has set a clear agenda for the Government, and for us all, to follow. The first step is to break through the barrier of the traditionally crude, "black and white", binary approach to tackling racism and discrimination in this country.
The debate about racism in Britain has been limited by the definition of ethnic status based on skin colour, and the belief that the white population is a homogeneous group. That denies the diversity of ethnic composition of the white population and the diversity of its cultural and historical roots.
The strong resistance, especially in central Government bureaucracies, in sections of local government and in Government-appointed agencies, to the acceptance of a distinctive Irish experience in Britain has meant that Irish needs are generally not accepted or specifically catered for.
If we accept that the Irish in Britain encounter particular problems and have specific needs, it follows that we can tackle those problems only if we have a sound body of information and research relating to the Irish experience in Britain. For that reason, I join with the organisations, including the CRE, that are pressing for the inclusion of an Irish category in ethnic monitoring systems and in the next census in 2001.
Unfortunately, the introduction of ethnic monitoring has been uneven across public bodies. It is vital, therefore, that the Government take the lead in insisting on the establishment of ethnic monitoring systems within all key areas of public service, and on the inclusion of an Irish ethnic category within those systems.
Given the deep-seated resistance of some public agencies to the very concept of anti-Irish racism, I do not believe that it can be left to individual Government Departments and agencies to decide on the principle or the practice of ethnic monitoring for the Irish in their respective spheres. Thus, I would urge the Government to co-ordinate the introduction of these systems, setting a definite pre-determined deadline for their implementation. That could be facilitated by the convening of a cross-departmental group, meeting representatives of the CRE and the major Irish representative community organisations to work through a programme for the common introduction of ethnic monitoring.
If we are to be a Government dedicated to providing equal opportunities to all in our community, we must ensure that the needs of the Irish are recognised in the


development of our policies and the allocation of resources. That must include the firmer recognition of the housing needs of the Irish community by the provision within the housing association sector of a fairer allocation of resources to successful and effective housing associations, such as the Cara and Innisfree housing associations.
The strategy should also include greater support to the voluntary sector organisations and advice bodies that are struggling to work within the Irish community to provide culturally sensitive services and to develop self-help groups to tackle the problems faced by the Irish community.
If we are to tackle the disproportionate level of ill-health among the Irish in Britain, we need to ensure that resources are targeted to health authorities where there are concentrations of the Irish population. That would provide the basis for addressing the specific health needs of the Irish community, taking into account the particular problems identified recently among the elderly and the mental health problems of a migrant community. Integral to our approach to combating anti-Irish discrimination should be an exercise that provides training to staff involved in direct service delivery, raises consciousness on the issue among policymakers in all echelons of Government and develops that within other funding bodies.
Within the criminal justice system and police service, it is clear—regrettably—that some discriminatory attitudes remain to be changed and could be best addressed by training programmes, backed by performance monitoring. We do not want to repeat the cases of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, but there are other cases outstanding that need to be tackled in the near future. I name Frank Johnson as one such case in which we must secure the release of an innocent person.
Change will not be effected unless structures are established to co-ordinate implementation. For that reason, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the establishment of a cross-departmental ministerial group to take forward a programme of policies aimed at addressing the needs of the Irish community and, alongside that, to set up a consultative forum between Irish community organisations and the Government.
I also recommend that close liaison takes place with the Irish Government, especially on issues such as mobility between Britain and Ireland and enabling housing transfer and exchange for many who may wish to return home on retirement or simply to be nearer their family. Such dialogue has commenced, but it may need resourcing to ensure its effectiveness.
Parliamentarians can also play a part in progress chasing the implementation of the Government's policy and overall programme, and in voicing the concerns and aspirations of the Irish community. To facilitate this role, I intend to seek support for the formation of an all-party parliamentary group devoted to representing the interests of the Irish community in Britain and to serving as a channel for the Irish community to voice its concerns to Parliament.
The Irish have made their contribution to British society over centuries. They have—literally—physically constructed Britain' s infrastructure. They have served in every walk of life, but have made a special contribution to our health and education services.
The Irish have made eloquent contributions to our artistic and cultural lives—ranging from Oscar Wilde, Bernard Shaw and James Joyce to the brilliance of today's poets and writers, such as Seamus Heaney, Edna O'Brien and Ronan Bennett. In theatre, film and dance, we have recently been inspired by an Irish renaissance.
In politics, Irish leaders such as Bronterre O'Brien and Fergus O'Connor were the foundation stones of the modern Labour and trade union movement. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and others in the Chamber today who, at some personal cost, have faithfully represented the interests of the Irish in Britain over the years.
In return for the contribution that the Irish have made to this country, the Irish community at least deserves the right to live free from discrimination and in equality and respect. As a Labour Government, we must dedicate ourselves to securing this basic human right and to that end I pledge my support. I urge the Government to implement the recommendations of the CRE report, to establish structures for consultation and dialogue and to go forward to eliminate anti-Irish discrimination as a scourge within our community.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on securing this important debate on the Irish in Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) is in the Chamber, and he and most of us in the north-west know of the considerable historical links between our constituencies and constituents and Ireland. Clearly, that has an impact on our feelings when we come to the subject.
We have heard about some of the problems that the Irish can encounter in this country. I will speak about those in a few moments. I would like to begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington ended—by paying tribute to the successes of the Irish in Britain. The Government fully recognise the contribution that people of Irish origin have made to British society. Over the centuries, they have become an integral and essential part of our national life, and their achievements are visible in many walks of life.
Only last week, we read of the BMRB/Irish Post survey—to which my hon. Friend referred—which confirmed the successes of many Irish people in our society. It overturned some traditional stereotypes and painted a different, up-to-date picture of skilled, well-educated people coming to Britain to add their expertise to the economy. It suggested that one fifth of people born in Britain have a family member from Ireland, either directly or through marriage. A book detailing the 150 most successful Irish people in Britain was also recently launched. Clearly, the Irish influence in Britain is flourishing—something which I personally welcome.
My hon. Friend talked about the concerns of the Irish community, and the record of achievement and integration should not blind us to the problems that he raised. The Government are not complacent. While the very many successes are gratifying, they are no excuse for not paying attention to other real concerns.
The debate follows a report produced by the Commission for Racial Equality in June last year, entitled "Discrimination and the Irish". My hon. Friend dealt with that in some detail. When the report was launched, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took the opportunity to congratulate the CRE on its efforts to raise awareness of the position of the Irish in Britain, and to welcome the research.
The report concluded that there was a lack of acknowledgement of Irish needs and rights, and that discrimination and disadvantage existed. A list of recommendations for action was produced, and my hon. Friend referred to many of those recommendations. The Government recognise that these problems exist and have taken them seriously across Whitehall.
Improving community relations and equality of opportunity is high on the Government's agenda. We are committed to tackling the problems of racism and discrimination—to creating a society in which everyone, regardless of background, colour or creed, has equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities. This is a policy of inclusion, not exclusion. We take seriously the concerns of every section of our society.
It should be re-emphasised today that Irish people already receive protection under current legislation. The Race Relations Act 1976 covers discrimination against anyone on grounds of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. The Act makes racial discrimination generally unlawful in the areas of employment and education, and in the provision of goods, facilities and services.
The Act has been an important tool in combating discrimination. It is now over 20 years since it was introduced, yet racial discrimination and hostility still exist. We intend to ensure that the legislation in this area is adequate to protect ethnic minorities and that it keeps pace with changes in our society. A number of organisations, principally the CRE, have put proposals to us for amending the Act; we are now looking carefully at those proposals. We need to ensure that all sections of the community can live their lives free from discrimination.
Measures to tackle racial violence and harassment are also contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill. We do not underestimate the harmful effect that such crime has on the victim, and the wider damage it can do to the trust and confidence that have built up between our communities. The creation of specific offences will send out a strong message that racial violence and harassment is unacceptable.
The Irish community will reap the benefits of a renewed emphasis on equality of opportunity across the board. We recognise that it has particular concerns—Ministers across Government have met representatives of the community to hear those concerns at first hand. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has discussed the concerns with the Irish ambassador and with representatives from a wide range of Irish organisations.
The Federation of Irish Societies has met Ministers and officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and officials at the Office of National

Statistics. The Department of Health is meeting Irish voluntary organisations to establish how it can support them in developing work on the health of Irish communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned benefits. One of the initiatives that has been taken is that the Benefits Agency has held Irish-awareness programmes in targeted offices. We hope that the difficulties to which he referred will be dealt with at that level.
My hon. Friend also expressed concern about housing. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has met a delegation of the Federation of Irish Societies to discuss its concerns. The Housing Corporation has set up a black and minority ethnic advisory group and although the Irish are not listed in the group's title, their concerns are included—indeed, the chief executive of the Irish Innisfree housing association is a member of the group. I am pleased to say that its work is under way. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has asked the Housing Corporation to draw up a revised black and minority ethnic strategy, which will shortly be published for consultation.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: What my hon. Friend the Minister says is important, but we do not have the bare, raw statistics. Can he say whether the next census will include a specific Irish category? That is the key to progress, which will otherwise be haphazard, valuable and welcome though it is.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which I shall deal with in a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to create a new race relations forum, which will be at the very heart of Government. In keeping with the Government's practices, it will include new voices and provide new solutions. Individual membership has yet to be decided, but I can confirm that it will include a member from the Irish community.
The forum will be part of the overall development of a community relations strategy that has been instigated by the Home Secretary and is being developed by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. We are determined to take those responsibilities seriously.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) both mentioned ethnic monitoring. I do not have time to talk in detail about all the issues that the CRE report highlighted, but I shall deal with the census and statistics. Ethnic monitoring and a separate Irish category in the 2001 census is a major concern of the report. We are aware of that concern from our meetings with representative groups.
The Registrars-General for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland are responsible for consulting census users in Government Departments, local and health authorities, academia and the private sector about their requirements for information from the next census of population and housing, which is planned to take place in 2001. The objective is to reach agreement on the questions that will be included in the census. Users have expressed strong support for the inclusion of a


question about ethnicity, and for statistics that are, as far as possible, comparable to those produced from the 1991 census. A number of users support the inclusion of a separate Irish category.
The census offices are conducting an extensive programme of testing possible questions for the 2001 census, including ethnic questions incorporating an Irish category. They will shortly draw together the results of that programme, and assess customer requirements in preparation for finalising the questions that will be included. The Government's proposals for the 2001 census will be published in a White Paper in the autumn.
In making the final selection of questions, the Government will consider not only the strength of users' needs for information, but the acceptability of questions to the general public and the burdens placed on them in filling in the questionnaire. It is important that we consult people in local government, in health, in housing and in the private sector to assess the value of those questions. Part of the concern is that we are able to measure the success of policies that are targeted to deal with the inequalities highlighted in the report.
It is also important that we are as inclusive as possible. The proposal for the inclusion of an Irish representative on the forum takes into account the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Hull, North, which I entirely appreciate.

Mr. McNamara: One of the most important strands of the current three-strand talks is the one dealing with the east-west relationship between Westminster and Dublin. Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the state of relations between the two Governments over the important question of the fate of Irish immigrants to Britain and of British people residing in the island of Ireland? After meetings between the two Prime Ministers, statements about intergovernmental relations have been printed at the margins, but has the Home Office been involved in such discussions?

Mr. Howarth: It is important to be careful and measured in any response to the detail of the points that

my hon. Friend raises, but I shall consider whether it would be appropriate to put into writing the particulars of some of the discussions. More positively, in the difficult negotiations on initiatives in Northern Ireland, there has been a strong understanding between the two Governments on how the process should be taken forward—relationships between the Governments are good.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The debate has focused on the Irish in Britain, but it has encompassed the question of the census. Will the census refer to the Irish in Scotland? Will the question on ethnicity extend to Northern Ireland, or will it apply only in Britain?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises a wider issue, which is not in the compass of this debate, although it would fall within our consideration of ethnic monitoring in the census. As I understand the matter, however, we are specifically dealing with people whose origin lies in the Republic of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting side issue, which may be considered in the consultations on the 2001 census.

Mr. McDonnell: In the discussions that have taken place so far, the question of ethnic status has covered everyone from the island of Ireland—it does not distinguish between people from the Six Counties and people from the Republic.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
The debate has done a great deal to remind us all of what has been achieved and what remains to be done. We will continue to consider carefully the concerns raised in the CRE report and elsewhere, and we will ensure that the Irish community has full access to the rights and opportunities that we will create for all our citizens.
This has been a useful debate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, it was probably overdue. It certainly gives us all in Government much food for thought. There are still issues to be resolved, but we are engaging with those issues, and I hope that, in due course, improvements can be made.

Insulin-dependent Diabetics (Driving Restrictions)

Mr. Adrian Sanders: This is a debate about improving road safety in the United Kingdom and in Europe. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions road strategy document, "Current Problems and Future Options", dated October 1997, states:
There is no evidence that medical unfitness plays a significant role in causing accidents; indeed, accidents with medical factors involved are too few to show up in any of the statistics that are collated.
Nevertheless, there is a suspicion that people with a medical condition such as diabetes are less safe behind the wheel than others.
That suspicion lies behind European Community directive 91/439, the origins of which are in discussions that took place in 1980. There have since been 18 years of medical advance and improvements to diabetic control that have dramatically reduced the complications of diabetes through the encouragement of better blood sugar control. The suspicion is outdated, and neither the European Union nor the United Kingdom Government can point to any statistical or actuarial evidence to support the concerns underlying the directive.
The Government's own assessment of the medical impact of drivers' medical conditions on the total road accident rates puts the issue into context. According to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, between April 1995 and March 1996 there were 163 notifications of collapse at the wheel, of which only 27 involved insulin-dependent diabetics.
Compare that with the 16,050 drink-driving accidents or the 31,050 accidents caused by driver fatigue. To follow the logic—if logic is the right word—should not we impose driving restrictions on anyone who drinks alcohol at any time or on everyone who at one time or another will suffer from fatigue?
I am not here to embarrass the Government or to score points. I want to help the Minister to find a way out that improves road safety while being fair to those individuals who are insulin-dependent diabetics and can prove their fitness to drive. I declare an interest, in that I am an insulin-dependent diabetic. The DVLA has yet to write to me to impose its ban for the vehicles that I shall mention in a minute, but I also have an interest on behalf of constituents and others who have written to me on the issue.
The Government have introduced a blanket ban, preventing people with diabetes who inject insulin from driving vehicles in category C1, which covers cars weighing between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes, and category D1, which covers vehicles with between nine and 16 seats. Those vehicles come under group 2, which is the category referred to in the directive.
The ban was not even required by the original EC directive, which clearly states:
In very exceptional cases may driving licences be issued to, or renewed for, applicants or drivers in group 2 suffering from diabetes and requiring insulin treatment, and then only where duly justified by authorised medical opinion and subject to regular medical check-ups.

Sadly, the Government have gone much further than the directive and introduced a policy that is not applied in other EU member states.
The Netherlands, for example, issues group 2 licences on an individual basis for one or three years, subject to independent medical examination. Finland and Sweden protect existing licence holders who use their licences as part of their employment, defining that as one of the directive's "exceptional circumstances".
According to the Danish Ministry of Transport executive order of March 1997, Denmark grants group 2 licences when a proper justified medical certificate is available, and provided that regular medical examination is carried out.
The Government have allowed discrepancies in the law in their interpretation of the directive. They allow people to drive vans, which are in category D1, on a voluntary basis but not professionally. That is surely proof that there was not sufficient evidence to introduce a complete ban. There was enough political pressure to protect voluntary drivers.
The Government have allowed the retention of licence rights to some drivers of even heavier vehicles, such as heavy goods vehicles, while preventing others from driving much lighter vehicles; they have allowed drivers from other EU states to come and drive over here in vehicles denied to United Kingdom drivers; and they have disregarded the rights of many drivers who have been driving for many years without any accidents or hypoglycaemic attacks at the wheel and who are now faced with unemployment without compensation.
People are already losing their jobs, and many more will follow as the DVLA notifies them of the ban. I have in my office a file of case studies from throughout the country. One concerns the BT engineer who will lose his job but will still be able to drive a minibus for cub scouts in his free time. Others concern employers who do not want to sack loyal, long-serving staff. I recently received a letter from an employer who asked:
Is there anything that can be done to help this very valuable, faithful, long-term friend and employee?
The situation is ridiculous for a Government who promised to help people to move from welfare to work.

Mr. Conn Pickthall: Many hundreds, if not thousands, of people will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Like him, I am an insulin-dependent diabetic. Tommy Wright, my constituent, is an HGV driver who became insulin dependent and lost his job. Because of his good record, the company kept him on to drive a minibus. Because of the blanket ban, he will now lose that job, even though he would be perfectly entitled to drive a minibus on a voluntary basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is totally unjust, and that the Government's blanket imposition of the ban is reprehensible?

Mr. Sanders: I agree entirely. I applaud the hon. Gentleman's work over the years on behalf of both insulin-dependent and non-insulin-dependent diabetics.
The situation is ridiculous. The Government promised to fight inequality in their new public health strategy and to tackle the problem of social exclusion, but this policy will have the opposite effect: it will drive people from


work into welfare; encourage inequality; and lead to unemployment and further discrimination against, and social exclusion of, people with diabetes.
The Government say that they have taken the decision in the interests of road safety, on the advice of the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes, but that body is yet to reveal the sources of the information on which it based its decision; has not, to my knowledge, commissioned any review of the evidence; and did not even meet for four years, during the critical time when the previous Government were drafting the UK regulations.
In those years, new studies, from America and Denmark in particular, had not yet been published. The Federal Highway Administration evidence showed that the accident rate for diabetic drivers was lower than the United States national rate. In Denmark, a review of nearly 8,000 people with diabetes showed no increased risk of accidents, including road traffic accidents.
Surely the Government could consider more pressing and effective road safety measures rather than spending time discriminating against a small group that does not even figure in their own accident statistics and has been shown in some studies to be safer than other drivers on the road.
The new rules could compromise road safety rather than enhance it, because they will act as a disincentive to newly diagnosed diabetics to inform the DVLA of their condition. If the DVLA does not know about a person's diabetes, it cannot impose restrictions on his or her licence. The self-regulatory system has worked until now, with conditions being imposed on diabetic drivers of certain categories of vehicle, subject to medical tests. That regular assessment has undoubtedly led to poorly controlled diabetics being taken off the road. That may no longer be the case as a consequence of the legislation.
All we ask is that the Government listen to the medical evidence and instigate an urgent review. The insurance industry—not known for its altruism—has listened and does not impose higher premiums on insulin-dependent diabetic drivers. So, what would be the fairest way to protect the rights of drivers who are in complete control of their diabetic condition, while targeting the minority who are less well-controlled and who should be the target of legislation? It is possible to identify people with the highest risk of hypoglycaemia through three strong predictors: a history of unawareness; experience of frequent severe hypoglycaemia; and previous hypoglycaemic-related injury or accident.
The British Diabetic Association and I, along with the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), recently presented a series of such proposals to the Minister. The association is also convening a group of medical experts to draft how a system of individual assessment might work, which will be presented to the Government and the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes. Its proposals already have the support of the Transport and General Workers Union, the United Road Transport Union, the Royal College of Nursing, the Employers Forum on Disability, the Drivers Action Movement, the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services, Unison, the Road Haulage Association and the RAC.
That is by far the most sensible way forward. Can we have the Minister's assurance that individual assessment of fitness to drive is the fairest way forward and that the

BDA's proposal will be seriously reviewed, in line with the evidence, by the Government in passing the law? Finally, will the Minister please say why individual assessment is not included in this legislation?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) for affording the House the opportunity to discuss this extremely important issue. As he said in his opening remarks, it is essentially about road safety, although the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments has been driving restrictions for insulin-dependent diabetics and, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, the House would expect nothing less from him.
The Government are well aware, from representations from hon. Members, individual drivers and bodies such as the British Diabetic Association, of the strength of feeling among those who stand to lose their entitlement to drive medium-sized lorries and minibuses, particularly when they drive such vehicles for a living. We do not underestimate the consequences for those drivers and have every sympathy with their situation.
Of course, it is the duty of the Government to listen to all concerns and to consider all the implications. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, on 12 February my noble Friend the Baroness Hayman met representatives of the British Diabetic Association with him, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). Indeed, in an intervention my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire raised the case of one of his constituents and how the restriction is impacting on his life.
However, it is also the duty of the Government to take account of the wider interests of road safety and to make clear decisions, even if those decisions may sometimes have unwelcome consequences for some. It has been said that the change in the law that prompted these concerns is not based on well-founded evidence and that British drivers are being discriminated against compared with drivers from other European Union member states. Although I am sure that there is now general awareness of the effect of the new law, it would perhaps be helpful to say a few words about the background to the new requirements and explain how the change in legislation, which has been portrayed as being specifically directed against drivers with diabetes treated by insulin, has come into being.
For many years, the United Kingdom differed from the rest of Europe in that we had long-standing arrangements that allowed a person who passed a driving test in a car of any size to drive a wide range of vehicles, including lorries weighing up to 7.5 tonnes, category C1, and non-commercial passenger vehicles with up to 16 seats, category DI. If we were devising a new driving licence scheme for modern road, vehicle and traffic conditions, it is unlikely—probably unthinkable—that we would give entitlement to drive such a wide range of vehicles on the strength of a driving test that could be taken in the smallest car.
The second driving licence directive, which was adopted in 1991 and whose provisions the UK fully supports, requires anyone wishing to drive 3.5 to


7.5 tonne lorries or minibuses with 9 to 16 seats, to take separate driving tests and to meet the more stringent health requirements, which in the UK formerly applied only to drivers of large goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes and buses and coaches. Given the size and weight of the vehicles in question, it is fair to say that those are sound and sensible requirements based on legitimate road safety interests. It is significant that during the consultations prior to implementation of the directive and in the period since it was implemented in the UK in January 1997, there have been almost no suggestions that anyone taking up driving for the first time should not have to comply with those requirements. Nor has the ban on people with certain medical conditions driving buses and lorries of over 7.5 tonnes and buses, which has applied for many years, been seriously questioned.
Also, if we were devising a driving licence scheme from the beginning, how would we decide which medical conditions should prevent a person from holding a licence or permit the driving of smaller vehicles yet preclude the driving of larger and heavier vehicles, bearing in mind the consequences if the person were involved in an accident? We would surely seek expert medical guidance on the risk associated with the particular medical condition. Assessment of medical evidence can be supported and supplemented by accident data, but lack of accident data should not invalidate the medical assessment.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has a number of panels comprising experts in particular medical fields, which were set up to provide objective medical advice on the risk from driving by people with particular health conditions. One of those panels—the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes—has endorsed the decision that category C1 and D1 vehicles should be driven only by those who can meet the more stringent health requirements, which preclude among others insulin-treated diabetics. It would be irresponsible of the Government to ignore its advice.

Mr. Sanders: Can the Minister confirm that at the last meeting of the honorary advisory panel on driving and diabetes the majority of people on the panel were not medical experts but departmental officials?

Ms Jackson: I cannot confirm or deny that, but I will certainly inquire into the matter and respond to the hon. Gentleman by letter. As I have argued, it is unlikely that the Government would have taken any decision that was not based on objective, informed and particular medical advice.
We do not have comprehensive accident data that could alone support the medical assessment that insulin-treated diabetics should not drive the heavier, larger vehicles. That is because information on the medical circumstances of those involved in accidents is not routinely collected, nor would it be practicable to do so. However, there have been individual studies. It has been found that insulin-treated diabetes was responsible for 17 per cent. of 1,605 police-reported accidents involving collapse at the wheel in which the driver survived and was minimally injured to the point that driving could subsequently be resumed. DVLA records also identified 23 hypoglycaemia-related serious accidents from November 1997 to mid-February 1998. The hon. Member

for Torbay contrasted those figures with those involving drink driving and driver fatigue. However, both of those conditions can and should be avoided. Collapse at the wheel due to hypoglycaemia, however, comes without warning.

Mr. Pickthall: May I point out to my hon. Friend that that is simply not true? Most diabetics get considerable warning of a hypoglycaemic attack. We are worried because the ban treats all insulin diabetics as if they were the same, which is not the case. Unlike other drivers, most of us have regular medicals, eye tests and check-ups. Insulin-dependent diabetics are often safer on the roads than other people.

Ms Jackson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I understand that the detailed and specific health checks to which he referred take place over three years. I apologise to the House if I have done so, but I do not believe that I said that all hypoglycaemic attacks that cause collapse come without warning. Attacks that occur without warning when a driver is at the wheel are the greatest cause for concern.

Mr. Richard Allan: What is the Minister's response to the telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) about the actuarial position taken by insurers? Insurance companies are not known for doing people favours and are happy to load premiums when they believe that there is a risk. The Government must be aware that insurance companies do not believe that insulin-dependent diabetics pose a significant risk. Is not that one of the best indicators that insulin-dependent diabetics do not pose a genuine risk?

Ms Jackson: It is worth repeating that accident statistics alone, on which actuarial tables are based, cannot be the deciding factor. The point at issue is whether people with a known medical condition that carries the risk of collapse at the wheel without warning should be permitted to drive vehicles that are of such weight and size that there could be serious consequences if they were involved in an accident. That assessment can be made only by those with the detailed medical knowledge to understand the implications and to look at the issue with detachment and objectivity.
For those reasons, we support the medical standards prescribed in the directive and the requirement that they should apply to drivers of vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes or with more than eight passenger seats. Understandable concern has been provoked by the issue of whether those requirements should extend to drivers who already hold entitlements to drive such vehicles on the strength of the less stringent testing and health regime which, until the directive was implemented, applied in the United Kingdom. Is it reasonable for the Government to remove entitlements which, in many cases, have been held for years and, in some cases, are being used by drivers in their jobs? As I said during the debate on road safety in the House in January, it is better to err on the side of what some might call overcaution than to increase the risk of death and injury on our roads.
It has been said that the UK has implemented the directive over-zealously, and that that is not reflected in the approach taken by other member states. The directive prohibits the issuing or renewing of licences for the


vehicles in question to those with diabetes treated by insulin other than in "very exceptional cases". The advisory panel has advised that there are no exceptional cases that medical opinion would recognise as being lower risk than others, and that, while modern treatments have improved the control of diabetes, they have not eliminated the possibility of a hypoglycaemic attack.
On the basis of that advice, we have decided against individual assessment of drivers—a point that the hon. Member for Torbay asked me to address—other than for the purposes of holding a licence to drive a car. Some member states may have provided for exemptions from that requirement, but only to a limited extent in most cases, and only for non-professional drivers. We do not know what expert advice those states took in making such arrangements, but it is right that we should take our own counsel.
The United Kingdom's enviable road safety record has largely been achieved by taking firm decisions.

Mrs. Jackie Ballard: The hon. Lady says that the United Kingdom has an enviable road safety record. She talked earlier about increased risk. Does she agree that there will be no increased risk if current licence holders are not restricted? How could not imposing restrictions make our enviable record worse? I hope that she follows my argument.

Ms Jackson: I do, indeed, follow the argument, but our enviable road safety record is of no comfort to people who have lost children or family members in a road traffic accidents. Surely all Governments have the responsibility to try to improve our enviable road safety, and this Government are committed to doing so.
We do not underestimate the consequences for insulin-treated diabetics who drive these vehicles for a living, but the rules are based on medical advice that is generally accepted throughout the EU. I assure hon. Members that the rules will be kept under review, both by our medical advisers and through our representation on the EU committee set up to consider health requirements in the light of advances in scientific knowledge and treatment. Road safety will continue to underpin such consideration.

Green-belt Housing (Silsden)

Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for making the time to reply to the debate.
I preface my remarks with a disclaimer: to put the record straight, I am not on the side of the hunting and gun lobbies which paid for and organised the demonstrations in London last Sunday. I have large rural areas in my constituency and, for the sake of my constituents, I wish that they had organised their march 18 years ago. They might have saved rural bus services from deregulation, and our farmers from the enormous problems of BSE, which were brought about by the deregulation of the preparation of animal foodstuffs. They might also have prevented the selling off of nearly all our once much-admired village council housing and the closure of village schools and other facilities. However, village schools in the Keighley area have survived due to the support of our local authority.
I shall discuss the question of the erosion of the green belt at Silsden. I hope that such erosion can be avoided.
Nearly three years ago, friends at Keighley asked me to let my name go forward to Keighley Labour party, which was in the process of selecting a parliamentary candidate. I was already aware that many people in Keighley were still struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Conservative Government of 1970–74 had pushed the old borough of Keighley, the urban districts of Silsden and Ilkley, and the rural district parishes of Steeton, Eastburn and Addingham into the Bradford metropolitan district council area.
For me, the bolt from the blue was the Bradford unitary development plan, especially the main point at issue: the allocation of a beautiful area of the Aire valley around Silsden for the building of about 1,500 houses. Straight away, I questioned the need for using such a massive amount of green belt. I was told by the chair of Bradford planning committee that the Conservative Government had put a great deal of pressure on the committee to make large amounts of land available for housing. The three Bradford constituencies were heavily built up and there was little room for development, so the committee had to consider Keighley and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).
I was regarded as a nuisance for raising the issue. It was explained that none of the councillors for the Keighley area, including Craven, which takes in Silsden, had made representations on the proposals. The majority of Keighley wards, five years ago, were represented by Conservative councillors. Most are now Labour, and their councillors take a view similar to mine on the erosion of the green belt and the use of green-field sites.
People in some political circles take the view that the pressure put on councils by the previous Government to release land in attractive rural areas was not completely detached from the generous contributions to the Conservative party by companies involved in housing development. I have been discussing and corresponding about the unitary development plan with Bradford council for three years. After the general election on 1 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I took the matter up with the Department of the Environment,


Transport and the Regions. They all tell me the same—that it is too late. The plan has been approved, and nothing can be done.
As Silsden is only one of the areas with whose allocation for housing I disagree, I realise that—along with the various action groups—I shall have a very busy time in the next few years arguing against developments as and when developers come along with their detailed plans. Although I am disappointed that our Government can do nothing to revise the UDP, I am encouraged by the possibility that my constituents and I will be helped by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister when we argue against individual developments.
The Secretary of State has said:
We are resolute in our desire to avoid unnecessary encroachment into the countryside. The presumption against development in the green belt will remain as strong as ever. But this does not mean that there will never, ever be any building on green field sites.
I can accept the need for green-field sites in some areas to infill between already developed areas, but large encroachment on the green belt, as at Silsden, or removal of village green space—as the UDP proposes for Manor Garth, Addingham or Leeming at Oxenhope—is unacceptable if we are to retain our green and pleasant land.
The two developments on village green space were opposed by Bradford council, but the council was overruled by the inspector following an appeal by the landowners, one of whom has since sold his plot at an enhanced value.
I applaud the Secretary of State's comment:
The vast majority of our people live in cities and towns. I want to see a renaissance of our cities. That will mean using existing empty houses, offices and warehouses for new affordable flats, not just for city yuppies.
The type of housing that will be attracted to the new UDP areas will not help my constituents who are living in overcrowded or sub-standard housing in the middle of Keighley. They would be helped if we could return to the system of many years ago, when local authorities could lend money for home improvements that would be repayable on the death of the owner and/or the sale of the house. That was particularly helpful to older people and poorer families who were unable to raise a second mortgage on their homes.
The proposed new developments are likely to be four-bedroom, two-garage detached houses that most of my constituents could not afford or even consider in their wildest dreams. They will be bought by well-paid professionals working in Leeds, Bradford or even Manchester. They will be dormitories, generating the sort of traffic and environmental problems that our Government are trying to plan against.
In an excellent edition of "Panorama" on 19 January, the Silsden town action group presented its arguments with clarity and intelligence. We saw the splendid Lister's, Manningham Mills, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh). Yes, it would take a great deal of money, imagination and enterprise to convert that memorial to West Yorkshire's magnificent industrial past into flats for people, but it could and should be done.
There are many smaller mills and warehouses in Keighley that could be converted. The once elegant but now rotting royal arcade was to be given new life by our local authority in a living-over-the-shop scheme—an idea that would not only breathe new life into the centre of Keighley, but combat crime and vandalism. I hope that problems with the owners of the arcade will eventually be overcome, and that the scheme will reach fruition.
A few months ago, I was shown derelict but still sound warehousing on various stretches of the Leeds-Liverpool canal. Some were in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).

Mr. Christopher Leslie: My hon. Friend called the debate in order to talk about housing problems in her constituency, with specific reference to Silsden. My neighbouring constituency—also a rural area—contains many examples of the way in which dormitory, executive, spec-built housing developments of the sort that my hon. Friend has described have begun to encroach on green-field sites.
The whole of the Bradford UDP was framed in the last Conservative Government's planning legislation. It is very unfortunate that so much green space was set aside, never to be recovered once it had been built on. I am glad that the new Government have indicated that they will encourage more use of brown-field or recycled sites.
My hon. Friend has mentioned recycling existing buildings. As she has said, my constituency also contains many mills and listed buildings that need to be reused. I hope that the Government will consider giving local authorities some support, helping them to intervene proactively in the market, to find developers and to match them up with derelict sites. If we leave it to the market to find recycled land—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention. If he has the permission of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and the Minister, he may make a brief contribution when the hon. Lady has stopped speaking.

Mrs. Cryer: The regional manager of the British Waterways Board tells me that the board is anxious to dispose of the derelict warehouses, and has asked for my assistance. Although intact, the warehouses are looking a little decrepit, but they would make very attractive flats. They would not be suitable for families with small children, because of their position near the canal, but in other respects they are beautifully positioned, with lovely views.
The warehouses would be suitable apartments for others, if only we can persuade developers to consider that sort of challenge rather than the easy profits of green-field sites. Perhaps a levy on green-field site development will remedy the imbalance about which I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has some ideas.
I look forward to the provision of new or improved council housing following the release of council house receipts, which is already in our programme, and the redressing of 18 years of Tory neglect of our towns and cities to make them again into places where people want to live.
All those changes must—and, I hope, will—come. I only hope that the shift from rural to urban housing does not come too late to save the lovely green areas around our towns, without which we, our children and our grandchildren will be much poorer.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) for giving way to me earlier. When she did so, I raised the whole question of green-field development throughout the Bradford district. Incidentally, when we talk about the Bradford district, people tend to forget about Keighley and Shipley. In fact, Bradford is the fourth largest metropolitan district in England and Wales. It is a significant piece of land in the Yorkshire region, and also a very built-up area in which half a million people live.
My hon. Friend has made some valid points. In a built-up area such as Bradford district, there are planning pressures to develop incrementally, by attrition, on the surrounding green-field sites. Part of the difficulty encountered by Bradford council relates to the calculation of the amount of land that must be set aside for development. The last Administration gave the council a calculation that it met virtually in full, but, unfortunately, it did so largely by allocating large chunks of green-field land.
I am concerned about Warren lane and Clarendon road in Gilstead, and Sty lane in Micklethwaite. These are valuable spaces, separating communities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, Silsden has a community integrity that is all its own. Gilstead, Eldwick and Micklethwaite also have long histories, but those villages will be subsumed in the growth of commuter-type housing in an area that does not really have a town centre. There are no proper planning considerations for village or town life—even for shopping facilities—and there is very little consideration for traffic generation. The Bradford area is very hilly, and narrow valleys cause transport problems.
The local authority has allocated many sites, including Silsden, in its unitary development plan, but I hope that, when it considers planning applications in the light of sewerage constraints, highways constraints and so on, it will go through the details with a fine-toothed comb, and possibly adopt some of the arguments that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley are using, to say that development should not go ahead on those sites.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford—

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Keighley.

Angela Eagle: I am sorry—I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). I must have the Bradford unitary development plan on my brain. I congratulate her on securing the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) on his contribution to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has raised some important issues relating to planning policy and the way in which it has been developed in Bradford. She has

also rightly pointed out that the background against which these often complex and difficult issues are decided is in the process of being changed by the new Government. However, until we can put the changes into effect, these issues must be decided according to the existing planning rules. My hon. Friend also knows that unitary development plans evolve on a rolling programme; I hope that that gives her hope that she can start to have an effect on the way in which the plans become reality.
The issues are complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley acknowledged, and they are by no means easily resolved. Therefore, the planning system attaches considerable significance to development plans, which are formulated after examining local issues in great detail. Such plans provide the framework for resolving development issues at local level.
Responsibility for Bradford's UDP rests with Bradford city council. In preparing the plan, the council is required to take account of development issues throughout the metropolitan district; to follow established procedures; and to consider objections made to its proposals.
The city council started work on the current UDP before 1993. In November that year, the draft UDP was published and made available for objection by the public. I understand that many objections were made, including a considerable number about the proposals for Silsden to which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley refers. More than 1,500 objections each were made to the four sites zoned in the plan for housing development and to one that was earmarked for industrial use.
Those proposals meant that about 50 hectares of the green belt would be taken at Silsden. I know that it will be of no comfort to those in the Aire valley, but I believe that the matter must be viewed in perspective. It is worth recalling that the total green belt in the metropolitan district as a whole is more than 23,000 hectares, so between 0.2 and 0.3 per cent. of the green belt is involved.
The development plan system is subject to rigorous procedures. A very important safeguard is the right for anyone who has made an objection to have it considered by an inspector at a public inquiry. The inspector is independent, and reports directly to the local planning authority.
In Bradford, the UDP inquiry was held between May 1995 and February 1996. Any local planning authority must give very serious consideration to what an inspector has said about a plan. I know that Bradford city council accepted almost all the inspector's recommendations, including those about Silsden. Although he noted that some sites are subject to constraints on their development, the inspector considered that the principle of development at Silsden was justified.
In the inspector's view, the needs for effective long-term planning and economic regeneration constituted exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of the land from the green belt. Acceptance of that view then became a matter for the council's judgment. Decisions about planning issues in local areas are usually best taken locally.
Obviously, there is a debate about whether the council has the detail of its planning strategy exactly right for the metropolitan district, but I am firm in my view that the development plan system is the best way of reconciling all the different views that there may be about the way ahead in each locality.
Inevitably, some decisions will not be to the liking of objectors; but the system allows for open discussion and independent arbitration about them. Any plan that takes more than four years to complete is testimony to the thoroughness of the process. Although our document "Modernising Planning" considers ways to speed up the process, the process will not be speeded up at the expense of safeguards and people's rights to object to a plan and to have those objections fully considered.
It is important, too, that each local planning authority sticks to the correct procedures for the preparation of its development plans. I understand that, for some proposed development sites in Bradford, there is concern that the council decided not to hold a second public inquiry, but that is a matter for the council, which has a duty to follow the statutory regulations.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister carefully considered arguments made to him in the light of existing guidance regarding ministerial intervention in development plans—I emphasise "existing". The powers of intervention in plans are used very sparingly and as a last resort, such as when a plan raises issues of national or regional importance or gives rise to substantial controversy—for example, extending beyond the area of the plan-making authority.
In this case, our considered judgment was that it would not be appropriate to intervene. The Bradford UDP was formally adopted by the city council on 23 January 1998, so, as I am sure hon. Members recognise, my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction regarding the policies contained in Bradford's UDP.
That is not to say that we are unconcerned about the general issues that arise from the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. She has drawn particular attention to the location of land for housing, arguing for greater attention to housing and development opportunities in the urban areas. The planning system allows for assessment of those issues in deciding how best to accommodate future development.
In March 1996, the previous Administration published regional planning guidance for Yorkshire and the Humber region. That is being reviewed, and we shall ask for views about its content. The review will take account of better information about the capacity of the region's urban areas to accept new development. More important, it is our intention that there will be much more of a regional contribution to the guidance, and a greater regional input in the way in which we plan for new housing.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has campaigned vigorously on behalf of her constituents in Silsden to express their concerns about the UDP, and I congratulate her on her attention to their views and her determination in ensuring that we know what they are. She has contributed to the debate on planning for the

communities of the future, and she has written several times about the issues for Silsden, notably on behalf of the Silsden town action group, while raising issues for other parts of her constituency.
Hon. Members will recall that, in a statement on 23 February 1998 on planning for the communities of the future, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out a range of measures to meet future housing needs. I need not repeat that statement, but I would respond to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley raised about recent decisions.
In the case of Bradford city council, the UDP has been adopted, so my right hon. Friend has no further jurisdiction in the matter. However, we propose to move as quickly as possible to the new approach set out in my right hon. Friend's statement, and the reviews of regional planning guidance that are under way provide an early opportunity to put that into effect.
When new regional planning guidance is ready, it will be open to local authorities to review their development plans. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has already made a few suggestions for that review. She came up with some interesting ideas about recycling land and putting it to housing use, which is the essence of the policy change that the Government have inaugurated.
However, it is important to remember that green belts are not a national designation. They are established by local authorities by means of development plans. The general extent of green belts is fixed in structure plans, taking account of regional planning guidance. It has always been open to local authorities to propose changes to green belt boundaries; but exceptional circumstances are required to justify alterations. That happened several times under the previous Administration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley spoke about the strength of feeling in her constituency on the issues that she raised today; my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley did likewise regarding his constituency. The Government have set out their proposals for tackling the issues at the heart of this debate, which are about regenerating our urban areas and looking for the most sustainable solutions to meet our long-term development needs.
Our statement of 23 February charts the course for taking this issue forward. We have emphasised that we want to stimulate debate, particularly at local and regional level. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I am sure that Bradford council will pay careful attention to it. We shall continue to listen and to provide strategic leadership in what will, I am sure, be a continuing debate in the coming months.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

The Chancellor was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Freedom of Information

Miss Melanie Johnson: What responses he has received to his White Paper on freedom of information. [30864]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): rose—

Hon. Members: Where are the Tories?

Madam Speaker: Order.

Dr. Clark: It is nice to see at least one Conservative Back Bencher coming into the Chamber. I welcome him.
The freedom of information White Paper, "Your Right to Know", has excited a massive response at home and abroad. I have received more than 500 responses so far from individuals and organisations, and the numbers are increasing day by day.

Miss Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his response and for the very full consultation on the much-welcomed White Paper. What is the timetable for the proposed draft Bill, which will be one of the first Bills to go through the new pre-legislative Select Committee procedure? I am sure that the Select Committee would like to receive the Bill in early June so that it can carry out much of the necessary scrutiny before the summer recess.

Dr. Clark: The consultation period has just ended and we are carefully considering the responses. However, as parts of the Bill are non-controversial, the information on those parts has already been sent to the parliamentary draftsmen, in the hope that we can ensure that the Bill is ready by early summer. It can then go before the Select Committee, which may be able to complete its consideration in time for the Bill to be included in the Queen's Speech.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Among the many responses that the right hon. Gentleman has received, is there one from the senior official to whom he entrusted the leak inquiry? Will he tell us what has been discovered, if anything—and in telling us that, will he also say how many copies of the White Paper were legitimately circulating within Whitehall at the time of the leak?

Dr. Clark: The preliminary leak inquiry has been carried out and I have seen the report. It concluded that too many copies were distributed to enable the inquiry to ascertain where the leak came from. The information

gained in the inquiry has been passed to the Cabinet Secretary, with suggestions about how to minimise circulation and reduce the potential for leaks.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman said that many copies were circulating; could he say precisely how many?

Dr. Clark: Three drafts of the White Paper were in circulation. I cannot be absolutely precise, but I understand that the number was in three figures.

Mr. Baker: What steps he has taken to ensure that new initiatives in the operation of central Government comply with his proposed freedom of information legislation. [30865]

Dr. David Clark: Last month, I published substantial background information on the White Paper "Your Right to Know", to exemplify our freedom of information commitment to active disclosure.

Mr. Baker: I have no doubt of the Minister's, or the Government's, commitment to freedom of information. However, may I ask the Minister to investigate the compatibility with freedom of information legislation of the strategic communications unit that has been established by the Prime Minister? Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister refused to provide detailed answers to questions on the strategic communications unit tabled by me and by other hon. Members? Is he aware also that the unit seems to be operating in a manner that restricts Departments in issuing press releases, that it is acting as a filter, and that it is therefore contrary to the principle of freedom of information?

Dr. Clark: Currently, we operate under a code, which obviously does not have statutory authority. We believe that the code is inadequate, which is why we require further legislation. The strategic communications unit is a means of ensuring that information circulates in Whitehall, helping us to ensure good government. That is its purpose.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend examine the mechanics of the distribution of information technology, particularly in Departments? There are very real worries that some of the systems that are currently operating, and some of the new ones that are supposed to be introduced into Departments, will not be capable of carrying the information or providing the access that he and I definitely want them to.

Dr. Clark: One of the unfortunate legacies that we inherited 10 months ago was the chaos in IT within government. Some Departments cannot speak electronically to other Departments. We plan to enhance the CabEnet system. I hope also that, before too long, we will have a secure intranet through which Government information can be passed electronically. It is ludicrous that, in this modern day, we have been left with a ramshackle machine in which Ministers cannot e-mail fellow Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions — Better Government White Paper

Mr. Mackinlay: When he expects to publish the White Paper on better government. [30866]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intends to publish the White Paper on better government later in the spring of this year.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister will understand that the Government's package of measures will be most welcome to the increasing number of our constituents who are bewildered by the plethora of agencies that have been created, particularly in the past 18 years. Constituents are sent from pillar to post trying to exercise their rights and get satisfaction. Will the Minister ensure that public sector unions and other representative organisations are included in the consultation process on the White Paper? Those organisations are the providers of those services, and they often—very unfairly—receive blame that should be apportioned elsewhere. There is a need for sensitivity in dealing with public sector unions, so that the White Paper and package of measures will be a success for our constituents.

Mr. Kilfoyle: To make public services more readily accessible to more people, the Government are considering many proposals, such as one-stop shops. I have been consulting public service providers, which work at the sharp end in delivering public services. Only yesterday, I consulted public service providers in Edinburgh, and we have already conducted similar exercises in London, Leeds and Southampton. I intend to continue that process in other parts of the country, to effect the fullest possible consultation with those stakeholders who work at the coal face in providing public service.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that the democratic principle provides the basis for the best form of government in any state? Does he understand that hon. Members in my party are delighted that that standard will apply to the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales? Do the Government intend to apply the same standards to any devolved institution in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The principles underlying attempts to effect better government apply equally in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. We shall apply the same principles of transparency, accountability and accessibility in Northern Ireland as we do elsewhere.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I listened carefully to that answer. What importance will the proposed White Paper attach to parliamentary democracy? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the better government White Paper should end his Government's practice, which has been established in just 10 months, of bypassing the House and making announcements via leak, press briefing and the media? What proposals will the White Paper contain to restore parliamentary democracy which has been destroyed by his Government in just 10 months?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that the right hon. Lady can anticipate my reply. I think it is a bit rich for the

Conservatives, after 18 years of inspired leaks and 18 years of circumventing parliamentary due process, to make such an accusation against us. The Government will ensure that the better government White Paper does exactly what it is intended to do, which is to ensure that small businesses and citizens, who were ignored for 18 years, are given the opportunity to access government service in a simple, open, transparent and efficient way.

Oral Answers to Questions — Freedom of Information

Mr. Grogan: If he will make a statement on the representations he received during the consultation period on the freedom of information White Paper. [30867]

Dr. David Clark: It is clear that the White Paper on freedom of information has caught the imagination of many people, not only in this country but overseas. The consultation period ended only last week, on 28 February. Most of the overwhelming number of responses have been positive. We are now studying them and are greatly encouraged by the positive suggestions that they make.

Mr. Grogan: In the spirit of freedom of information and open government, will my right hon. Friend say what measures he is taking to encourage Government Departments to be more open in their practices in the period leading up to legislation?

Dr. Clark: I believe it is very important that the Government themselves are pre-emptive in their approach to the release of information. In that respect, I intend to publish on the internet and to place in the Libraries of both Houses the consultation papers that I have received, except where people have requested confidentiality.

Mr. Soames: What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received from the civil service about advice tendered by civil servants to Ministers? Does he agree that it is of the utmost importance that if officials are to give the best possible advice to Ministers, that advice must remain confidential?

Dr. Clark: We have made it quite clear that the Government cannot operate in a goldfish bowl. We have provided some protection for the advice on policy given to Ministers by civil servants, but we believe that much of the factual and analytical background information can be published. I have already done that in respect of the preparations for the White Paper.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not a good indicator of our seriousness about freedom of information to be found in the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack)? When my right hon. Friend gave him details of a leak inquiry in a way that was unprecedented in the House, he revealed information that Ministers in previous Governments had ducked giving in Parliament.

Dr. Clark: I am glad that the House has appreciated the openness and frankness with which I tried to approach this matter, as I believe it was the right and proper thing to do. Indeed, we need to build bridges between Whitehall


and Westminster, and I hope to be in a position in the next two or three weeks to announce various initiatives that may help to build those bridges.

Mr. Ruffley: Is the Chancellor aware of our great concern at the fact that he has failed to discover the source of the leak of the White Paper earlier this year? In the interests of openness, will he disclose to the House who the leak inquiry officer interviewed? If he has not interviewed the Minister without Portfolio, why not, as most of the Lobby seem to think that he was the source of the leak in the first place?

Dr. Clark: It really is a bit strong for the Conservatives to say that, given that, when they were in government, they gave us no information whatever about leak inquiries. I have been open with the House. There was a full preliminary leak inquiry, and a number of people whom the independent interviewing officer judged it necessary to interview were indeed interviewed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Presidency

Dr. Starkey: What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on (a) simplifying EU rules and (b) reducing bureaucratic requirements imposed by the EU during the UK presidency. [30868]

Mr. Kilfoyle: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, last month attended the informal meeting of internal market Ministers in Cambridge for discussions on better European Union regulation. It was agreed to establish, before the end of the UK presidency, pilot test panels of businesses in some member states to comment on EU legislative proposals. It was also agreed to have regular exchanges of information on our national simplification initiatives and to give renewed impetus to Commission work to cut EU red tape for business.

Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He may be aware that in my constituency of Milton Keynes a large number of small businesses have been active in expanding their level of exports to the European Union. Excessive regulations bear particularly heavily on small businesses. Can the Minister say whether any actions are being taken specifically in the interests of small businesses?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Small businesses suffer disproportionately from too much bureaucratic red tape. Within the SLIM initiative—simplification of legislation within the internal market—moves are afoot, which we support within the Commission, to minimise the effect of over-regulation on small businesses within the European Union and the single market.

Mr. Hogg: Is it not true that complexity and bureaucracy are the inevitable hallmarks of EU legislation, and that, if we are to achieve the objectives of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), we need to reduce the scope and probably the competence of the EU?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My right hon. Friend has already flagged up three areas and we will continue to pursue them

throughout the presidency. First, we must raise the profile of the problem of burdensome regulation. Secondly, we must look at those areas within existing legislation that can be simplified. Thirdly, we must ensure that in future a minimal amount of regulation is imposed on business within member states. All those initiatives are being promoted and pursued now under the UK presidency.

Oral Answers to Questions — Data Management

Mr. Todd: What steps he will take to improve the efficiency of data management in Government. [30869]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The central information technology unit in my Department has established a Government secure intranet service, which will enable the secure exchange of electronic communications between Government Departments to improve the efficiency of data management in government.

Mr. Todd: In an earlier answer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referred to the shambles of information technology management left as a heritage by the previous Government. One of the critical areas in dealing with that is the imposition of coherent standards in data management. What steps are being taken to ensure that we not only set standards but enforce them and that we collect information on the various technologies used within government to store data?

Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend will be aware that there are about 132 separate registrations for a simple matter like a name. We are seeking to simplify that in a way similar to that used by our competitors in Asia. In Singapore, one can have one's name and address changed through the information technology that is available with one call on government. Currently there is a plethora of different systems. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is taking forward the work of maintaining the information technology with the millennium bug in mind and we are taking the opportunity to look at information technology across a whole range of Government Departments.

Mrs. Gillan: May I suggest that the Minister starts with his own Department when improving the efficiency of data management? Is he aware that the summary of departmental plans to deal with the year 2000 computer problem does not tally with the back-up papers provided by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which contain omissions and vague information? Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to withdraw the quarterly statement that was slipped out yesterday by way of a written answer and to give to this critical and increasingly costly programme the detailed attention that it requires? If he cannot transfer data accurately from one piece of paper to another, how can we have confidence in his ability to solve the 2000 problem?

Mr. Kilfoyle: First, I remind the hon. Lady that it was not on paper—it was on CD-ROM. The important point for Opposition Members to recognise is that this is too serious a matter for them to try political point scoring from it. We are making all the appropriate efforts to ensure compliance in respect of the millennium bug


problem, which is a problem that raised its head long before 1 May 1997. To charge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with anything less than the appropriate industry and application in trying to resolve the problem and make information available to the House is churlish of the hon. Lady.

Oral Answers to Questions — Reports (Publication)

Mr. Simon Hughes: If it is his policy for reports commissioned by Government from outside individuals or agencies to be published; and if he will make a statement. [30870]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Work commissioned from outside individuals or agencies is subject to the same criteria for publication and disclosure as other information held by government.

Mr. Hughes: That is not a very helpful answer. Does the Minister agree, for example, that, if the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions commissions, at taxpayers' expense, a report from independent academics about the electoral system for London, that report should be published in the form in which it was submitted, rather than being sent back to the authors, altered at the Government's request and published only when it more accurately reflects the sort of messages and information that the Government want it to contain?

Mr. Kilfoyle: First, the specifics of that question would be best answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I shall bring them to his attention. The presumption in Government is that, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, such analytical information at least would be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — Freedom of Information

Mr. Dalyell: What representations he has received on his freedom of information White Paper in relation to whistleblower activities. [30871]

Dr. David Clark: I met my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on 22 January. In addition, a small number of responses received to the White Paper on freedom of information have raised issues concerned with whistleblowing.
As the House will know, the Public Interest Disclosure Bill is about safeguarding the interests of employees who make unauthorised disclosures in very specific circumstances and it has the support of the Government.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he and his senior officials entered into dialogue with us on 22 January. Does this help legitimate deep throats?

Dr. Clark: Yes.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's response, but does he share my concern that an attitude still seems to prevail among some senior civil

servants that frowns on any civil servants speaking—even as a citizen—to their Member of Parliament and sharing their concerns about what is happening?

Dr. Clark: I said earlier that I believe that it is time to build bridges between Whitehall and Westminster. It is my intention to bring forward certain suggestions which will improve standards and contact between Members of Parliament and civil servants.

Mr. Paterson: Following consultation and legislation, would the right hon. Gentleman like to see more freedom of information established in this country than currently prevails in the United States of America?

Dr. Clark: It is widely acknowledged that the freedom of information White Paper marks the next stage of freedom legislation throughout the world. In that sense, I believe that it will offer a much better opportunity for the people of Britain to find out information that may relate to themselves and which they may want. I believe that that will make a huge difference to the political culture of Britain and that it will bring the government of our country closer to our citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions — Electronic Service Delivery

Mr. Alan Campbell: What representations he has received on the potential use of smartcards to deliver Government services. [30872]

Dr. David Clark: The Government believe that there is a need to use smartcards and commercial smartcard services for electronic Government transactions. Such cards would not function as identity cards. My officials have reported to me on a number of meetings that they have had with representatives from manufacturers and other interested groups on smartcards.

Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the excellent work being done by Siemens in my Tynemouth constituency to develop new smartcard technology? Does he agree that there is great potential for the use of such technology to deliver public services in a cost-effective and user-friendly way?

Dr. Clark: I agree that we can use smartcards to improve services to our citizens. If we can bank 24 hours a day, why cannot Government services be available 24 hours a day? I am aware of the work of Siemens just across the river from my constituency. The Government cannot afford to miss out on a system that has improved customer services in the private sector. It should be applied to Government services as well.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the smartcard technology developed by Siemens was approved when the cross-party information technology committee saw it in Germany last summer? Will he confirm that the use of smartcard technology can help to cut crime, particularly benefit fraud? That is one reason why many Conservative Members want that technology extended so that one day we shall have proper identity cards to help cut crime.

Dr. Clark: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's general points, but I do not agree with him on identity cards.


Smartcards are not identity cards and we do not see them as such. By using smartcards and other cards with magnetic strips, we can improve services to our citizens. That should be the aim of all hon. Members.

Mr. Hoyle: What pilot projects are currently under way to develop the technology used in delivering Government services. [30873]

Dr. David Clark: As part of my work on the better government White Paper, I am encouraging IT initiatives in central and local government. We will use technology to cut red tape and make life easier for businesses and citizens. We are making imaginative use of touch screens and electronic forms to get rid of the notion that government is just about queuing and filling in forms.

Mr. Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that there should be closer links between central and local government using IT? Such links would benefit the people of Chorley.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is correct. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has established a joint working group between central and local government, which is trying to work out ways of co-ordinating services to our citizens. The use of IT and one-stop shops throughout the country can bring Government services closer to our citizens, making life more comfortable for them. Information technology is the key. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is far too noisy. It is all right agreeing with what is said, but let us have quieter conversations.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am pleased that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is carrying on the good work of the previous Government on IT. Has he extended the work that we were doing? Is he still getting support from industry for his efforts? Has the central information technology unit been able to advance any further ideas on how to distribute kiosks and other centres so that the public have easy access to them?

Dr. Clark: We are trying to develop the use information technology through various approaches. That will result in a better end product than the route followed in the United States, which has largely used the internet.
By using a mixture of touch screens and the internet, we will be able to provide IT that is not only very friendly to our citizens but will revolutionise their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Presidency

Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on his Department's objectives for the UK presidency. [30874]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Three departmental objectives for the UK presidency have been set. The first is to convince our European partners, the Commission and the European Parliament of the importance of better regulation. That is vital if we are to free business to create jobs and wealth. The second is to ensure simplification of burdensome rules. Simpler EU rules will help bring the EU closer to

its citizens. The third is to improve the EU's regulatory processes to ensure better quality regulations for business and citizens in future.

Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the initiatives that he has taken to simplify European recognition for business and the citizen. At the risk of being too pessimistic, may I ask whether he agrees that European regulation is over-bureaucratic and obsessed with red tape?

Mr. Kilfoyle: Although, as my hon. Friend says, there is certainly too much red tape, there is a commitment in the EU to overcome it. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will host a presidency event this weekend in Manchester—which will be attended by more than 200 people from throughout the EU—that is dedicated to supporting the European business test panel and the simple legislation for the internal market initiative, for example.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Corbett: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, I shall have further such meetings.

Mr. Corbett: In offering our sympathy to the families of the two men who were so brutally and senselessly murdered last night near Newry, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will not allow criminal fanatics to derail the peace process, which people from both communities so very much want to succeed?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We can all use the normal and right but ritualistic language about an evil atrocity, those appalling murders, and how senseless and wicked they are. They are all of those things. I think that the two men who were murdered last night—two friends across the community divide—in a sense symbolised the future in Northern Ireland. The gunmen, in the evil atrocity that they committed, symbolised the past. We have now got to make progress—real progress—in the talks. That should be our mission, so that the hopes of the future drive out the demons of the past. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I echo and support the Prime Minister's remarks?
On a different subject, the Prime Minister says that he made clear throughout the election campaign that he would implement the Dearing recommendations on higher education. We have made clear that, if he does, we will support him. Why has he broken his promise?

The Prime Minister: We have not broken a promise at all. We have accepted substantially the Dearing


proposals, with this change, which was, in fact, made quite clear during the election campaign: we believe that it is better to replace the maintenance grants with help for lower-income families with tuition fees. There is a choice. We can have either no maintenance grants but help for low-income families with tuition fees or a flat-rate tuition fee, which is what Dearing suggested, and help with maintenance grants. I am afraid that we cannot have both.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister is breaking his promise. He said that he would implement the recommendations of the Dearing committee and he is not implementing the recommendations of the Dearing committee. Does he realise that, by not implementing Dearing, his proposals will mean that the poorest students will either be £2,000 worse off in total or will not go to university at all? What is his justification for that policy?

The Prime Minister: No, precisely the opposite is the case for the reason that I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman. I repeat that we did not break any promise on this. We made it clear that we believe that the maintenance element should go. Under our proposals, one third of students will be exempt from tuition fees and another third will pay a reduced amount, so a large proportion will pay either no fees or reduced fees. Under the Dearing proposals they would all, irrespective of their income, have to pay the £1,000 tuition fees. That is why our proposals will help lower-income students, not harm them. In addition, as a result of the proposals that we have announced, whereas Dearing said that contributions should be repaid when people reached an income of £5,000 a year after leaving university, our figure is £10,000 a year, so we are giving additional help to low-income families in that respect as well.

Mr. Hague: Let us get this clear for the Prime Minister, because he clearly does not understand his own policy. It is no good his saying that he is not charging the worst-off students tuition fees. They do not pay tuition fees now—but they do get grants, and the Prime Minister is abolishing them. If one abolishes a grant that is most generous to the worst-off people, the worst-off people will be the hardest hit. Anybody in the country can work that out. If that is not the case, why have overall student applications fallen by 4 per cent. this year and applications by mature students fallen by 18 per cent? So much for lifelong learning. For the sake of thousands of students and families, will the Prime Minister now, before it is too late, implement the actual recommendations of the Dearing report, as he promised to do?

The Prime Minister: Let me explain it to the right hon. Gentleman again. The Dearing proposals, which he says we should support, are that everybody, irrespective of income, pays a flat-rate tuition fee. Under our proposals, one third are entirely exempt and another one third pay reduced fees. That is why our proposals are better for lower-income families. Secondly, we have to introduce the reform because under the Conservative Government there was a cap on student numbers, which means that only 30 per cent. of school leavers are entitled to go to university. As a result of our reforms, we shall get about 500,000 extra students into further and higher

education over the next five years. That is why our reforms are a better deal for universities, for students and for the country.

Mr. Hague: The facts do not support the Prime Minister. Under the previous Government, higher education was hugely expanded, but now the number of applications is falling. Students and their families feel betrayed, and they are right to feel that way. They are right to be angry at the Government's deceit and double dealing. The Lords amendments passed on Monday night would give some help to the worst-off students. Even the Prime Minister cannot argue about the fact that those amendments would give more help to the worst-off students. Will he now acknowledge that the Government have got that part wrong and agree to accept the amendments?

The Prime Minister: The answer is no, for the very reason that I have already given the right hon. Gentleman—but let me give it to him again. Under his proposals, students who under our proposals will be exempt would pay tuition fees. He must accept the fact that they would pay that extra money. In addition, under his proposals, as under the previous Government, there would be a cap on student numbers—but we can now raise that cap. Also as a result of our proposals, an extra £165 million will go into higher education next year. That is why the vice-chancellors have welcomed our proposals.
The choice is simple. The right hon. Gentleman says that applications have fallen, but there will be more students in further and higher education next year because of our proposals. If we were to return to the system that he proposes, fewer students and less money would go into universities and fewer people would get the chance of a university education. That is why our proposals are better for Britain.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister talks only about tuition fees; he neglects to mention the grant, which he proposes to abolish. That is a key part of the equation. Before the election, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no plans to introduce tuition fees; during the election campaign, he said that he would implement the Dearing report; after the election, he broke both promises. As soon as the Government got into office, power went to their heads, their principles went out of the window and their promises went in the bin. Is not their treatment of students a shabby tale of deceit from beginning to end?

The Prime Minister: As I explained in my very first answer, there is a choice. Either the situation is left as it is, with maintenance grants and full tuition fees, or we do not have maintenance grants but exempt the poorest students from tuition fees. We have chosen the latter course because it is better and fairer. As for lectures from the Tories about student poverty, they introduced the most discredited student loans scheme that the country has ever seen. Students know perfectly well about the raw deal they got under the Tories. That is why they will not believe a word of what the right hon. Gentleman says now.

Mrs. McGuire: Given the image of pastoral tranquillity before 1 May 1997 that has been painted by the Conservative party, would the Prime Minister be surprised to find that one of the last pieces of research on rural affairs from the Scottish Office under the Conservatives showed significant decreases in gross domestic product and incomes, and a massive increase in homelessness? Would it not have been more appropriate for the Conservative party to reflect on their government than to don a corporate Barbour jacket and plunge headlong into collective denial?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservatives are in a state of denial about their record over 18 years. Following the Conservatives's period in office, 450 rural schools have been closed, only one in four parishes now has a bus service worthy of the name, crime is up, poverty is up and they gave the country BSE. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me repeat it—they gave the country BSE.
On that point, fortunately, I have good news to report from Brussels today. There has been a majority for the Commission proposal which, if held at the Agriculture Council next week—I very much believe that it will—will mean that the export certified herds scheme is through. At long last, after long years of Conservative failure, there is at least some light at the end of the tunnel.

Mr. Ashdown: Can the Prime Minister tell us in what year of this Government he expects to start to make progress on his early pledge to reduce NHS waiting lists?

The Prime Minister: I want to make progress this year and further progress next, but that must be done against the background of keeping a tight discipline on public spending, sorting out the structural budget deficit we inherited and making sure the public finances are sound. As soon as that is the position we will be able to put into health the investment that we need to get waiting lists down.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister knows that he has not made progress this year—in fact, waiting lists have gone up by 100,000. Is he aware that NHS waiting lists went up by 250,000 during the whole term of the previous Government? It is predicted in a recent and respected report that this Government will achieve an increase of 250,000 in NHS waiting lists by the autumn. Does the Prime Minister understand the gravity of that? If that were to be achieved, would he count it a success or a failure?

The Prime Minister: Of course I do not want that to happen. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats asked for £1.1 billion extra health spending. We put in £1.5 billion, but they say it is not enough. We want to get waiting lists down, and we shall. I hope that when we achieve the reduction that we have promised we will get cheers instead of the cat-calls we get now. We have to do that against the background I described. The Conservatives doubled the national debt and we will now pay out in interest payments on that debt this year more than we spend on the whole schools system of the UK. It is precisely for that reason that the Chancellor—I

entirely agree with him—has made it clear that investment in our schools and hospitals has to depend on sorting out the public finances.

Mr. Hayes: Tell that to the sick and the dying.

The Prime Minister: The Conservative party spent 18 years letting those people down. It will take time, but I can assure the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that, at the next election, the pledge we made will have been fulfilled.

Mr. Livingstone: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he has been lobbied by members of the Confederation of British Industry who want Labour to drop its commitment that trade union recognition should be granted when a simple majority of those voting in a ballot vote for recognition? The CBI proposes instead that there should be no change in the status quo unless an absolute majority of all workers—even those not voting—vote for it. Will he point out to the CBI that, if such a system had applied in the general election last year, the Conservative party would still be in government and that we have no intention of having one rule on ballots for ourselves and a different one for trade unions?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I think that we were both elected under the first-past-the-post system, but perhaps that is another argument. It is important to realise that I have been lobbied by all groups, not only the CBI, on this matter. The Government are considering the matter—we shall make our views known in due course. I hope very much that a different approach by the Government can bring business and trade unions together—as we have found on many issues, not least the social chapter and the minimum wage—on trade union recognition. If there are outstanding questions, we shall have to resolve them in the Government. We shall make our views known once that decision has been reached.

Mr. Pickles: Does the Prime Minister's new-found enthusiasm for the countryside apply to rural hospitals? If so, will he send a message of support to the staff of the Ongar War Memorial hospital and the surrounding community? Until 1 May last year, the hospital had a safe and secure future in the national health service, but, under the Labour Government, it faces closure. Do community hospitals have a safe place in the NHS?

The Prime Minister: It certainly was not the case that they had a safe and secure place until 1 May. As I said, we have spent £1.5 billion more than the Conservative Government were going to spend. In respect of the services that the hon. Gentleman mentions and others, we will do our very best within existing spending constraints. When we can, we shall put in the extra resources that are needed, but the Conservative Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, closed hundreds of community hospitals.

Mrs. Fyfe: As we approach International Womens Day, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reaffirm the Labour party's commitment to the principle of an equal number of men and women in the Scottish Parliament? Has he come across the advice


of Noreen Burrows, the professor of European law at Glasgow university, who said that Europe would help, not hinder, our efforts to achieve that? Will he take such views into account before final decisions are made?

The Prime Minister: We certainly shall take those views into account. We fully support equal opportunities for women. Indeed, it is as a result of the changes that the Labour party made that so many women Members of Parliament are sitting on the Labour Benches. It is a change that we want to see elsewhere in the United Kingdom as well.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Prime Minister admit that he misled the British public about students and that, as a consequence of the Government's action, the poorest students will now be worse off?

The Prime Minister: No, I will not confirm that, as it is not true. Moreover, our proposals differ from those of the Conservatives, not only because, as I said earlier, the Conservative party would charge everybody tuition fees, but because, under its proposals—if it accepts the Dearing report—students will start to make repayments after earning £5,000 a year whereas, under our proposals, they will do so after they have earned £10,000 a year. Our proposals will help, not hinder, the poorest students.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Prime Minister has expressed the importance of tertiary colleges in developing skills for the local work force. Will he comment on the tragedy facing Gwent tertiary college, which was probably the most successful in Wales? The previous principal, Sue Parker, with the support of the college's corporation, turned the college into a financial disaster almost overnight—indeed, it is now accused of misusing European funds. Will the Prime Minister support our demands for the corporation to be sacked and insist that investigations are carried out to ensure that projects that expect European money receive that money—and that that money is not spent on general running costs? Will he also support our demand that such corporations should be taken out of the hands of big business and put into the hands of democratically elected and accountable local authorities?

The Prime Minister: I certainly support what my hon. Friend says about the misuse of public funds. I am well aware of his long-standing interest in, and concern about, the situation and of the fact that he raised it in a recent debate in the House. I understand that the chair and the vice-chair of the college have resigned and that the principal has left. I understand that a recovery plan is in place and that the college is determined to turn things round.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend and the House that Welsh Office Ministers intend to keep a close eye on the situation. I understand that there is to be a meeting between one of those Ministers and the Gwent Members of Parliament within the next few days. I shall certainly insist that I am kept informed.

Miss McIntosh: The Prime Minister referred earlier to the certified herds scheme. Will he give us an assurance

that the cost of setting up and running that scheme, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom, will be met by the Government?

The Prime Minister: The limitations of the help that we have offered were set out in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week. We are well aware of the difficulties that farmers face because of increased costs on top of all the problems with BSE. That was the reason for the statement last week. I shall certainly consider how that fits in with the hon. Lady's point.

Mr. Mullin: When the time comes—in the distant future, one hopes—for my right hon. Friend to publish his memoirs, may we take it that he will be giving HarperCollins a wide berth?

The Prime Minister: That question might possibly be a trifle premature. I shall certainly seek my hon. Friend's advice. He may even merit a chapter; who knows? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition's biographer is having a little difficulty finding a publisher. Perhaps they can apply.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is clear from earlier exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister broke an election pledge. I say that because the Dearing report did not present a choice between the abolition of the maintenance grant and the introduction of tuition fees. Does the Prime Minister accept that the choice was made not by Dearing but by the Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: No. I do not accept that, for this reason: the same amount of money can be made to go only so far. If we did not have tuition fees for all students and we retained the maintenance grant, there would be something like a £500 million hole in the budget for student finance. That is why there is a choice between keeping the maintenance grant system or having tuition fees but exempting low-income pupils.
We decided that it was fairer to have exemptions from tuition fees so that two thirds of students will pay no fees or lower fees and will be in a better position on repayments, not having to repay any money until they are earning £10,000 a year or more. That is a choice within the given budget. It is the best choice for students and it is entirely in line with what we said in the general election campaign.

Mrs. Gilroy: Given the Government's key commitment to attacking poverty by rooting out long-term unemployment, will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the 77 businesses that recently signed up to support the new deal in Plymouth, following the employers' launch? Will he also join me in congratulating the Employment Service staff in Plymouth on the energy, enthusiasm and determination with which they are making a success of the new deal, in partnership not only with business but with the private, public, voluntary and community sectors?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I congratulate the staff and the businesses that have participated. Indeed, we are


getting a superb response from businesses and people around the country. In the new deal so far—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the Conservative party opposes the new deal, but it is supported by the vast majority of businesses and the country. As a result of the new deal, 5,000 young people are already in unsubsidised jobs and more than 1,000 lone parents are off benefit and in work. That is a huge saving for the Exchequer, quite apart from an opportunity for them.

Mr. Bercow: Given the Prime Minister's—[Interruption.] I recognise that the children must settle down, Madam Speaker. Given the Prime Minister's professed support for a business-friendly Europe, can he give the House a specific example of one European directive or regulation that he will fight successfully to have repealed during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union? Does he understand that if he cannot, for all the soundbites it will show that he has no influence in Europe?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, I can. Last week, as a result of the work done by my noble Friend the Minister for Trade, we have secured a considerable liberalisation of the telecommunications regime, which means changing and getting rid of the European legislation that was hindering the development of the market. I very much hope that we can join hands across the divide and welcome that.

Mr. Bradshaw: Does the Prime Minister agree that the situation in Kosovo is extremely worrying? Does he also agree that it could become the worst thing that Europe has seen since 1945? Will my right hon. Friend tell the Foreign Secretary that when he meets Mr. Milosevic tomorrow he should leave him in no doubt that the international community has learnt the lesson of appeasement in Bosnia and that we will not stand idly by while he ignites another ethnic war in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary will give that message to Mr. Milosevic very strongly. The situation in Kosovo is extremely grave. That is why the Foreign Secretary has extended his programme to see Mr. Milosevic tomorrow and he will deliver him that message. That shows again the importance of the role that Britain can play, not merely in Bosnia but in the whole region in stabilising it, bringing peace and attempting to prevent conflict growing. I have no doubt that if there is substantial conflict there, or indeed in Bosnia, it will have an impact on us and on the whole of Europe as well as on that part of the world.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Baker: When he next plans to visit the Lewes constituency.

The Prime Minister: I fear that I must give the hon. Gentleman the same reply as I gave him last time. I have no plans to visit his constituency yet. I am sorry about that.

Mr. Baker: I am disappointed and I shall keep trying. It is a great pity because many of my constituents who rely on public transport would like to meet the Prime

Minister. Is he aware that, since 1974, the cost of rail travel has increased by 78 per cent. above inflation and the cost of bus travel has increased by 57 per cent. above inflation but the cost of private car travel has decreased by 6.5 per cent? Is not that an indictment of the previous Government and a green tax in reverse? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in the weeks ahead the Government will take action to ensure that bus and rail fares are cut?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give that undertaking, but I can give an undertaking that the White Paper on the integrated transport strategy will deal precisely with how we ensure that the different forms of travel fit in with one another and how we make a regulatory system that matches the needs of consumers. What impact that will have on fares in the long term it is too early to say, but that approach is the right one—rather than leaving it to market forces—and I hope that it will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Engagements

Mr. Bill Michie: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on industrial relations and the forthcoming Bill. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 826 which concerns 350 workers who have been sacked by management even though they went through the proper legal procedures? Will the new legislation ensure a level playing field for workers and employers and prevent the present problem of the unions having to obey the law while, for some strange reason, employers can flout it?

The Prime Minister: The purpose of the proposals is to make it clear that there has to be fairness in the workplace. I know about the Magnet dispute since it happened just outside my constituency. I very much hope that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service can be involved. I know that it was at one point, but it is not at present. I hope that the negotiations can resume. That is easily the best way to resolve the dispute.

Dr. Fox: Responsibility for abortion is not to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet on 29 January, Hansard reported the Under-Secretary as saying—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he may not use quotations at Question Time.

Dr. Fox: The Under-Secretary said that if there was to be change to the abortion law in Northern Ireland, it should be considered by a devolved assembly. Why should there be such a difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Scotland and Northern Ireland need not necessarily be treated in the same way across the various programmes for devolution. One of the points of devolution is that what happens in Northern Ireland or in Scotland is a matter of debate and can be decided in different ways.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deal brokered by Kofi Annan to


allow access to presidential sites must be tested as soon as possible to ensure that Saddam Hussein does not renege on commitments that he has entered into? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is important that the policy of diplomacy backed by force remains in place?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Contrary to speculation, the Security Council resolution is a big step forward. It makes clear that the severest consequences will flow if there is any breach of

the agreement. That is written into the resolution and it sends the clear message to Saddam Hussein that he must allow inspectors in, and testing to begin, or force will inevitably follow as a result of his breaching the agreement. The mixture of diplomacy and force has got us to where we are, and it is right to continue to use it. British troops, with American troops, will remain in the Gulf to ensure that the agreement that Saddam Hussein's Government have entered into is tested, adhered to and obeyed.

Legal Aid

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to repeat a statement on improving access to justice that is being made in the other place by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
At present, the legal aid system is failing us all. The system is failing the millions of people on modest incomes who do not qualify for legal aid and simply cannot contemplate going to law because they would have to pay legal costs if they lost, and it is failing people on legal aid, because the Government cannot direct money to those who need it most and to those cases where there is a public interest in seeing justice done. Finally, the system is failing the taxpayer, who, year on year, is being asked to pay more and more, but can rarely get help from legal aid when it is needed.
Although legal aid is costing us more and more as costs run away, ahead of inflation, it is helping fewer and fewer people each year. It is, therefore, our intention to modernise the way in which civil cases are paid for. We want a system of civil justice which is there for everyone when they need it, not just the rich or the very poor. We intend to transform the legal aid scheme to ensure that we get good value for money from lawyers who are paid from legal aid, and so that we spend taxpayers' money on those who need it most and on those areas where it can do most good.
Achieving all our reforms will require the approval of Parliament through new primary legislation, but, even using existing powers, we can start the process of change. It is on that first stage that I wish to concentrate today.
The publication of the consultation paper marks the first stage of our modernisation of legal aid and legal services. When my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced the programme of reform at the solicitors annual conference in October last year, he said:
it is essential that the details
of our proposals
are right … We shall be consulting widely and openly".
That is precisely what we have been doing in the four months since October, and will continue to do for a further two months of the formal consultation period. This is a listening Government: we are listening to views on these proposals, and will continue to do so. We have had detailed discussions with the legal professions and with many interest groups—and more are planned. Their comments have contributed to the development of the proposals, but we shall not confine our listening to the legal profession, because our aim is justice for all.
The consultation paper invites views on a proposal that will allow the majority of people in England and Wales to secure access to justice. We propose to allow conditional fee agreements—no win, no fee agreements—to be used in all except family and criminal cases.
Conditional fees offer a new way for people to bring their cases. Lawyers share the risk of litigation with the client by agreeing to work without a fee if the case is lost. If the lawyer is successful, he is entitled to a success fee in addition to his normal fees. Although the maximum success fee can be up to 100 per cent., normally it is

50 per cent. or less. In nearly all cases, the lawyers also voluntarily limit the success fee to no more than 25 per cent. of the damages in any event. Conditional fees have been available since 1995 for a limited range of proceedings—personal injury, insolvency and human rights cases—and they are working well.
More than 30,000 people have taken advantage of this approach to bring personal injury claims. Many would have been unable to afford to pursue their claims without conditional fees. I refer to people who are only just above the legal aid limit—people who are far from well off. They constitute the great majority of the population who are in work, with families, mortgages and savings—or other assets—that mean that they are not eligible for legal aid, but who cannot contemplate the open-ended commitment of meeting lawyers' bills. Only the very rich can face the thought of lawyers' bills without any financial fears, and even they must worry sometimes. To continue to restrict narrowly the use of conditional fee agreements is to deny an avenue of access to justice to the majority of people.
The consultation paper seeks views on any changes to the current law and practice that might improve the operation and use of conditional fees—for example, by allowing the success fee and the insurance premium to be recoverable from the losing party. It also invites views on the Government's plans to begin modernising legal aid. Over the past seven years, the cost of civil and family legal aid has tripled to some £671 million. The average cost has grown from £1,442 to £2,684–53 per cent. above the rate of inflation. The number of acts of help funded in 1996–97 fell by about 39,000. Taxpayers are paying more and getting less. That cannot be right, and it cannot continue.
We need a modern legal aid system, in which only cases that cannot reasonably be funded in any other way, and which have the necessary priority, are backed by the taxpayer. It has never been our intention to abolish civil legal aid, as has been wrongly claimed. We want to focus taxpayers' money where it is most needed and can do most good—on matters connected with social welfare, such as employment, housing, dealing with debt, state benefits and actions against officialdom and bureaucracy. To achieve that clear focus on social welfare issues, the Government intend most money or damages claims to be funded through conditional fees in future. Consequently, they propose to transfer most money and damages claims currently supported by legal aid to the conditional fee system.
However, as my noble and learned Friend told the other place on 9 December, we do not intend to remove legal aid from housing cases, in which the main purpose of the action is often to achieve a home fit to live in. That is precisely the kind of case to which legal aid ought to be directed.
In addition, the ability to challenge public authorities through judicial review is a necessary check on the use of the power of the state, and a positive encouragement to maintain high standards in public administration or public bodies. The poor must also be able to exercise that right of challenge.
Legal aid will remain available for those who qualify. We also believe that legal aid must continue to be available when a person claims to be the victim of wrongdoing by public authorities—for example,


the police. There, too, the ability to challenge misdeeds is an encouragement to maintain high standards and proper behaviour to those over whom public bodies exercise authority.
The extension of the availability of conditional fee agreements will provide an alternative means for people to bring most money or damages claims without public funding. Our aim is to create conditions in which anyone—regardless of financial status—can use conditional fees to bring cases, across the whole range of litigation in which the main remedy sought is money or damages. However, we recognise that the current financial structure of solicitors' firms may not allow that, and that the insurance and finance industry needs time to develop products to assist in the expansion of the use of conditional fee agreements. The Government therefore propose a measured approach to encouraging this change to take place.
The Government propose to remove most personal injury actions from the scope of legal aid by the middle of the year. Lawyers working in that area have considerable experience of taking cases using conditional fee agreements. Similarly, the insurance industry has developed products, with premiums that, in most cases, are about £155 or less. The Government will work with the insurance and banking industries to help them develop more and even better products to allow everyone, regardless of their financial standing, to bring cases using conditional fee arrangements. That combination—the experience of lawyers in that area of litigation, and developed insurance products—is sufficient to allow such cases to be alternatively financed through conditional fee agreements.
In addition, there are certain categories of proceedings that the Government believe no longer have sufficient priority to command continued public funding. It is important that scarce public funds are directed to where help is most needed. The Government are not persuaded that cases that involve, for example, disputes arising from the course of running a business, inheritance, partnerships or trusts meet that criterion. Nor do we believe that taxpayers' money should be used to help neighbouring landowners to settle boundary disputes. In those cases, there will be assets at issue, which would allow the case to be taken with a conditional fee arrangement. In any case, the issues will generally be too narrow or too specific to deserve the use of public money, when such support means less for other matters of greater public importance. The consultation paper seeks views on the proposals to remove those categories from the scope of legal aid.
The Government have been listening carefully to comments that we have received regarding medical negligence cases. The Government believe that many lawyers practising in that area need to modernise the way in which they run their firms, so that they can structure their finances to enable them to take cases on behalf of clients, regardless of their financial standing. However, we accept that it will take time. Therefore, the Government do not propose to remove such cases from the scope of legal aid for the present.
However, we intend to do what we can to reduce the high failure rate of such cases. It cannot be right that only in as few as 17 per cent. of the cases that are supported

by a legal aid certificate is more than £50 recovered in damages. Medical negligence cases should be conducted by practitioners who are experienced in that field of litigation. We cannot any longer allow inexperienced practitioners to take such cases. I have no doubt that part of the reason why the failure rate is so high is that lawyers take such cases without the necessary experience. Therefore, they are unable to make timely, informed decisions on the merits of a case, or on whether an offer of settlement is appropriate, or reasonable in amount.
It serves no one's interests if cases are brought with little prospect of success—least of all the victims of the alleged negligence. Therefore, the consultation paper invites views on a proposal to allow only experienced practitioners to take cases on behalf of assisted persons in that field. We propose that the Legal Aid Board should establish contracts only with lawyers of sufficient experience. Anyone who is granted legal aid to pursue a medical negligence case will be required to use a lawyer who holds a contract with the board. We are keen to hear what criteria could be used to establish whether a lawyer is sufficiently experienced to hold a contract to take cases on behalf of those receiving legal aid.
We intend to remove the remaining money or damages claims from the scope of legal aid as experience of conditional fees among lawyers and insurers develops and they become more widely and readily available.
The Government recognise that, during a transitional period, help will be needed to assist in the transfer of funding away from legal aid. There may be some extraordinary cases among the categories to be removed that lawyers may not initially be able to support fully on conditional fee arrangements. The Government believe that, in time, it will be possible for such cases to be financed solely by conditional fee agreements. Therefore, the Government intend to establish a limited transitional fund. That fund would provide support, for example, in cases involving very high costs—few lawyers' firms are financially structured to carry such cases, because they could not afford the risk of losing—or where there are high investigative costs of establishing the merits of the case.
We expect the need for the fund to support such cases to cease because we believe that, in the long term, those cases will find lawyers whose practices are financially structured to take them on under conditional fee agreements. The transitional fund would also provide help in cases that we exclude from legal aid but which demonstrate a significant wider public interest. That would allow us to start to provide assistance in that type of case under the transitional arrangements, ahead of primary legislation to establish a public interest fund. The size of the transitional fund will be set each year according to other priorities for spending legal aid money and the diminishing extent to which the fund is needed.
The Government will develop a modernised legal aid system. We are working toward a system in which we can control expenditure; obtain good value for public money; and target legal aid where there is the greatest need and it will do most good.
In future, the Government's main priority for using public money to provide legal services will be to assist those who are excluded from society because they are unable to exercise their legal rights. The Government will achieve that through the legal aid scheme and through the creation of a community legal aid service.
The consultation paper sets out the steps towards that goal that can be taken now: making conditional fee agreements more widely available; targeting civil legal aid on social welfare matters; and creating a special fund for public interest cases.
We shall welcome responses to the consultation paper and will consider them carefully before arriving at considered decisions on specific proposals to bring before Parliament.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I begin by thanking the Minister for giving me an advance copy of his statement after lunch, and for giving the press an advance copy after dinner last night. Does he accept that the Lord Chancellor's plans, which were announced at the Law Society conference in Cardiff in October, were ill thought out, socially divisive, economically illiterate and politically inept? Does he not recall that the Lord Chancellor proposed to abolish legal aid for money claims, largely personal injury cases, and to replace it with conditional fee arrangements? Does he agree that everyone, apart from the Lord Chancellor, knew that, far from increasing access to justice for the least well-off, his proposals would deny access to justice to a great many people who, thanks to legal aid, are currently able to get to court?
Does the Minister not agree that, far from staunching a financial haemorrhage in the legal aid budget, the Lord Chancellor was intent on abolishing the very part of the system that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), an experienced personal injury lawyer, says makes the Treasury a profit, while doing nothing at all about legally aided family and criminal law cases which most certainly need to be looked at? That still seems to be the case, judging from the Minister's statement.
Does the Minister further agree that the Lord Chancellor launched his new policy in October without having had any real discussions with the insurance industry, the professions and consumer and welfare groups? Is it not the case that they are all deeply sceptical and that, as a result, the Lord Chancellor is deeply unpopular? The Minister will recall the speech by the present Lord Chancellor at the Bar conference in 1996 when he said:
Supporters of legal aid must never cease to emphasise that it is a highly successful public social service.
Does he not recall the Lord Chancellor, then the shadow Lord Chancellor, saying:
In civil cases which reached judgments in 1995 to 1996, there were judgments in favour of the assisted person in 81 per cent. of the cases. The proportion of cases where there was either a settlement or judgment in favour was 91 per cent"?
Does he not also recall the then shadow Lord Chancellor saying:
Personal injury litigation as a category was conspicuously successful. Obviously the greater the success rate, the closer the legal aid system can approach self-funding. These success figures tell against any argument that legal aid is generally granted too readily"?
No doubt the Minister recalls those words very well.
The Minister says that, over the past seven years, the cost of civil and family legal aid has tripled to £671 million. What analysis has he done to discover the reasons for that increase? He made a similar complaint in

the House in November. Surely by now he should have done his homework and found out why there has been that increase.
May I congratulate the Minister on having finally grasped the point that I put to him in November, which is that many solicitors' firms, especially those in the smaller towns and urban communities outside the big centres of population, cannot afford to carry conditional fee arrangement claims, and there is also no adequate insurance available to protect litigants? He says that the Government will work with the insurance and banking industries to develop products that will enable everyone, regardless of financial standing, to bring personal injury claims. Why did not he start that work last year?
I welcome the Minister's decision to think longer and harder about medical negligence cases—which, again, he should have done last year. Will he also look at industrial diseases claims in the same light? Will they remain within the scope of legal aid?
Will the Minister tell us more about the transitional fund? How long is "transitional"? How big will it be? Are there to be restrictions on its use? For example, will it be available only to assist in claims for £100,000 or more? The Minister says that it is available for public interest cases. Will they also be limited to claims for £100,000 and over? When will the preliminary legislation come before Parliament?
The Minister also referred to his consultation paper. In the context of the Lord Chancellor's Department, that must be an oxymoron. When, precisely, will the consultation period close? Last November, I described the Government's proposals—accurately, as it now turns out—as a thorough mess. Yesterday, the Lord Chancellor said that other events that he was being questioned about by the Public Administration Committee were no more than a storm in a tea cup. Does the Minister agree that if the hand on the saucer were a good deal steadier, we would not have to put up with these troubles, and nor would the hon. Gentleman have had to make this statement?

Mr. Hoon: I am just a little disappointed that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) chose to prepare his case on the basis of the rhetoric that he might use to address a jury, rather than on homework that he might have done were he to address a High Court judge.
On the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, if he had read the Lord Chancellor's speech at Cardiff a little more carefully than he appears to have done, he would have noticed that my noble Friend said that it was the Government's intention to abolish legal aid for most money claims. Most money claims does not mean all money claims. Indeed, our proposals, if carried through, will result in 60 per cent. of money or money damages claims being removed from legal aid.
I am also disappointed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give the Government credit for listening carefully to the responses to a four-and-a-half-month period of consultation. In his speech at Cardiff, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor stressed on no fewer than 12 occasions his determination to consult all those affected. Precisely because we have consulted and listened, we are able to bring forward this consultation paper today—which, in any event, will allow for a further two-month period.
In answer to one specific question, I anticipate that the consultation period will end on 30 April, after which the Government will reflect upon the answers to the questions set out in the paper and bring forward proposals for Parliament ultimately to decide upon.
There is no doubt that the Government intend to look more carefully at family and civil law cases in general. I anticipate that, whenever opportunities arise, the Government will bring forward further proposals for primary legislation that will affect the existing rules on the granting of legal aid in this area.
I continue to be impressed, if I may say that, by the hon. and learned Gentleman's ability to avoid answering any questions on the subject. In particular, the House would be interested in his observations on legal aid and whether he judges that its present cost is too high, too low, or about right. In the course of the various opportunities that the Government have afforded to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has not answered those quite important questions. It is quite easy to come before the House and criticise; I have yet to see any example of the hon. and learned Gentleman explaining the Opposition's policy in these important areas, which affect the great majority of citizens in our society.
The purpose of the transitional fund is to make available financial support for important cases between now and whenever primary legislation is approved by Parliament. That will not necessarily be limited to cases involving costs of more than £100,000, although clearly that is a useful guideline for the sort of support that might be available. In particular, the purpose of the transitional fund—as, indeed, will be the purpose of a public interest fund, assuming that Parliament approves such a proposal—is to allow those who have cases that are dependent upon important matters of public interest to bring those matters before the court and have those important issues resolved.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I welcome the Minister's proposals on legal aid, particularly as they affect housing cases. Perhaps we should consider whether, when a housing case is won against a public corporation or other body, it should be beholden upon lawyers to obtain costs on behalf of the legal aid fund. Is he aware that if, as is proposed, the small claims court extends its jurisdiction to cases involving up to £5,000, there is a risk that some housing cases might fall within the category in which legal aid would not be available and costs would not be recoverable?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I appreciate his concern, and assure him of the importance of housing matters to the Government. However, the jurisdiction of the small claims court is a matter for separate consultation. We are carefully considering the matter and have received representations on it. I shall certainly take his views into account.

Mr. John Burnett: Will the Government let us know, first, what research they have made into conditional fees—a system that is riven with conflicts of interest? Last year, the Policy Studies Institute concluded that it was far too early to gauge the effectiveness of those fees.
Secondly, who will pay the insurance premiums of the poorest and most deprived in our society, who will now be denied legal aid?
Finally, what are the Government's views on using a contingency legal aid fund as the best means of opening access to justice to middle-income Britain?

Mr. Hoon: Research has been conducted—the hon. Gentleman mentioned the PSI research, which was not nearly as depressing in its conclusion as he suggests. PSI's report stated:
Many of the potential problems identified before conditional fees were introduced seem to have been successfully addressed.
On balance, the institute felt that the operation of conditional fees had been successful.
I add to that a further piece of evidence: more than 30,000 cases have now been agreed to be taken under conditional fees. Moreover, the rate of negotiation of those agreements has increased month-on-month and year-on-year, presumably as lawyers get more accustomed to operating under such agreements.
My Department has not received a single complaint on the operation of conditional fees funding—in contrast to the complaints that I receive daily on the deficiencies of legal aid. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have had constituents writing to them and appearing at their surgeries to complain about the operation of legal aid, whereas, in my knowledge, constituents have not been complaining about the operation of conditional fees funding, which seems to be remarkably successful.
We continue to study carefully proposals on the operation of various contingency funds which have made to us by the Bar and by the Law Society. However, as our consultation document says, we are concerned that if we allow development of conditional fees and the creation of a fund, there is a clear danger that the best cases will be dealt with on a conditional fees basis, leaving weaker cases to the fund—therefore making it unlikely that the fund will be financially self-sustaining. Both the Bar and the Law Society are attempting to deal with that problem, and we await with interest the outcome of their efforts.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that one factor in the escalating cost of legal aid is the reduction in union membership? The fact is that, 20 years ago, there were 30 million trade unionists, every single one of whom would be represented free of charge—either by their union representatives, or by lawyers paid for by their representatives—in cases of personal injury at work, allowing them to make their case. Now, the number of trade unionists is just over 6 million, creating a gap that has undoubtedly made a massive contribution to the number of people in various types of employment who have to go to legal aid. We will have to take that factor into account.
Will the Minister take it from me, and from others, that one of the biggest issues in legal aid that the Government will have to address is that, regardless of what legal aid system is introduced, we are not convinced that people such as the Maxwells and the Levitts will be deprived of large legal aid sums—which should be going to the many thousands of people who want to fight their little case on its merits with the help of the legal aid system? That is


the problem. How will the Government deal with multi-million pound fraud cases? Will those cases continue to get those sums?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the excellent schemes operated by trade unions and their lawyers, which provide effective, specialist representation to a wide range of people who receive support as a result of their trade union membership. Indeed, my hon. Friend may well have seen towards the end of last year an interesting suggestion from John Monks on behalf of the Trades Union Congress that those schemes should be extended to people who are not trade union members, so that the expertise available could be used to benefit the generality. That is something to which we refer in the consultation document. It is an interesting development which I hope my hon. Friend would welcome.
On my hon. Friend's second point, about people in receipt of legal aid in large-scale fraud cases, I assure him that the Government will continue to bear down on those who seek to secure legal aid when they are not financially eligible. It is vital for the integrity of the scheme that we channel legal aid to those who need it, not to those who are disguising their assets overseas or elsewhere.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I welcome the Minister's statement that his Department is looking further at the contingency fee fund concept? Within the profession, there is a feeling that if a choice has to be made between contingency fee funds and conditional fee agreements, there would be a strong preference in favour of the contingency fee fund because it avoids the conflict of interests already referred to and because it avoids the necessity of plaintiffs having to find the insurance premium.
On the question of medical claims and legal aid being confined to lawyers who have special expertise in that sphere, does the Minister understand that he will be creating monopolies, and that in many areas—for example, rural areas—there will be no lawyer to whom a plaintiff can turn for advice and assistance?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's support. On the question of a fund, I suspect that he is speaking unconsciously on behalf of the Bar, which would probably prefer a fund to the arrangements that are currently in place. I am not entirely sure that the Law Society would prefer a fund in place of the opportunity for its individual members to take forward conditional fee agreements. However, that is clearly a matter for the professions, and we would await with interest the outcome of their deliberations.
I also suggest that it might well be possible to create a fund in a narrower category of cases, that it might be appropriate to establish a fund in discrete areas of litigation. Indeed, the Government are seriously considering taking appropriate powers, whenever Parliament might approve such a course, that would allow the creation of such funds. That might well be a way of reconciling the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concerns with mine.
I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about medical negligence cases. These are sensitive and difficult cases which require extensive

investigation before any return can be made. That is why the Government are convinced that it is appropriate only for those who are experts to conduct such litigation. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point about the importance of securing access to local justice and of having a lawyer available nearby, I hope he will agree that it is much better to have a lawyer available who knows what he or she is talking about and who has dealt with that kind of case before, rather than simply to go down the road to someone who might recently have done one's conveyancing but who knows nothing about medical negligence.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Having been a magistrate for more than 20 years, I am well aware of the value of legal aid and, indeed, of the rising cost of legal aid. However, I am also aware that many people do not qualify for legal aid. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government's proposals will be fair to those people who currently do not qualify for legal aid?

Mr. Hoon: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. The complaints that I referred to earlier, which people bring to their Members of Parliament in writing or at their surgeries, generally turn on financial eligibility for legal aid. The way in which successive Governments have controlled the cost of legal aid has been by bearing down on eligibility. Clearly, one option available to this Government to restrict the cost of legal aid is simply to continue to bear down on eligibility; to take out more and more people so that, ultimately, only a handful of people would qualify for legal aid. That was not the course on which we decided. We believe that it is much better to try to find the appropriate means of funding cases. That is why we propose an extension of conditional fee agreements. That will make the legal aid fund go further and allow us to concentrate it on those people and areas of real need. I hope that, in that way, I will be able to satisfy my hon. Friend's concerns.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister will know that I have an interest in expert witnesses in personal injury cases. I wonder whether he can say more about how expert witnesses will be paid for. Some lawyers are telling them, "You should share the same risk as me, whether we win the case or not." That is inappropriate because the expert witness is supposed to be giving unbiased evidence to a court. What will the Minister do about that and how will he ensure that the losing litigant will not face a massive bill at the end? We must remember that the Department of Social Security is the first to be paid after a personal injury case is paid out.

Mr. Hoon: I shall confine my remarks to personal injury and I hope that that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concern about expert witnesses. Expert witnesses appear in a range of cases. I share the hon. Gentleman's reservation at the prospect of such witnesses sharing in the costs of a case. One of the great weaknesses that we have identified about the way in which civil litigation operates is the development of an expert witness industry, where expert witnesses are available for any argument that a lawyer wishes to advance. Too many cases are made expensive simply because both sides have teams of expert witnesses and, inevitably, have to pay for them.
I look forward to a day—these are proposals contained in our consultation document on reform of the civil justice system—when expert witnesses are genuinely expert and give objective advice about a case. In those circumstances, it is important that their fees—as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said, they can be considerable—are paid for. That is why we believe that it is important to establish the conditions in which lawyers, the insurance industry and, where appropriate, the banking industry can work in partnership to fund certainly the more expensive cases, and to seek the development of the insurance products that will allow for the cost of expert witnesses to be properly met.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I broadly welcome my hon. Friend's statement. The fact that he has obviously taken on board many of the representations made in the past few months is a cause for celebration, not criticism. It was always inevitable that there would be teething troubles with such a radical change. As long as he is prepared to listen to the representations made from benign quarters, I see no long-term problems with the changes.
On medical negligence, should not we be moving towards no-fault compensation for the most serious cases? They can sometimes drag on for up to seven years and that is in nobody's interest except the lawyers.

Mr. Hoon: Benign is not a word that I have often associated with my hon. Friend, but I can see that I am wrong. I appreciate his support. The figures for recovery in medical negligence cases show that only 17 per cent. of cases produce recovery of more than £50. The average recovery appears to be about £4,000, with £4,000 paid in costs to achieve that. That makes a strong argument for no-fault compensation.
There are other difficulties about no-fault compensation that we would have to address. This might be one of the areas where such an approach is appropriate and, together with colleagues from other Departments who have a clear interest in this matter, we will be considering carefully whether that is the appropriate way of taking these cases forward.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: While I welcome the Government's aim of reducing the burden of legal aid on the taxpayer, is not the Minister concerned that making solicitors' firms bear the financial risk in some cases is an unbearable burden for smaller firms and makes the lawyer personally involved in his or her client's case? Is he not concerned that there is a danger that the objective nature of the legal profession itself will be undermined?

Mr. Hoon: May I deal first with the point about whether solicitors can afford the costs of this sort of approach? The Government have commissioned some research by KPMG into the business case for solicitors' firms undertaking much of their litigation under conditional fees. The report has been received and will be published in due course. I hope that the hon. Lady will study it with care and decide, in the light of the research conducted, whether or not it is possible for small firms to conduct widespread conditional fee arrangements. We

must bear in mind the fact that lawyers earn their money from a number of different sources, of which legal aid is one; and legal aid will continue to be available in range of cases.
Conditional fees, particularly as we propose to extend them to the great majority of cases, will extend the opportunities of the great majority of citizens to take legal cases before the court. I said that only the very rich and the very poor are currently in a position to take cases before the court. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that our proposals will open up access to justice for the great majority of people in our society. That should provide lawyers with financial opportunities that are not currently available to them.
I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern about lawyers being involved in their clients' cases and that potentially affecting their judgment of what is appropriate. However, I hope that she accepts that there is no evidence so far of that happening under the conditional fee agreements that have been concluded to date.
Moreover, the fears to which I referred when replying to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) have not been borne out in any of the research. Indeed, in the more complex cases, there will in any event be a member of the Bar who ought to be able to bring a degree of objectivity to bear on the assessment of the case. We should see a degree of partnership developing between solicitors and banisters in the assessment of risk in given cases and the appropriate level of recovery.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot continue with these long questions and very long answers. I understand the complexity of the statement, but I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible and for that we need to have shorter questions and answers.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: As a specialist personal injury solicitor, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that, if fewer cases succeed under the revised proposals, the Government could be a net loser; and that the acid test will be whether more cases succeed? In that context, I welcome the proposal to extend the recovery of the success fee and insurance premium from insurance companies, as opposed to taking them out of the victim's pockets. Will my hon. Friend comment on whether block contracting will still be permitted as part of these developments?

Mr. Hoon: We anticipate that more successful cases will be brought as a result of these proposals, because one of the advantages of allowing lawyers to participate and risk their own funds in the prosecution of cases is that they will have an interest in selecting good cases to take forward. We believe that that is a good thing. As for my hon. Friend's various more technical points, I hope that he will accept that we are concerned to take forward a modernisation of the justice system and that contracting will be a feature of it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister used the word "modern"—naturally—several times in his statement. Why is it necessarily modern or right to move


in the American direction, towards a highly litigious society plagued by unscrupulous lawyers, in which doctors and others who work in the public interest are saddled with huge insurance costs?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept for a moment that we are moving in the American direction. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are seeking to achieve a situation where only good cases are brought before the courts and our courts are not occupied by cases of dubious merit that are drawn out over weeks, months or even years. That will be precisely the opposite of the American experience. We do not intend to go down that route.

Ms Hazel Blears: One of the attractions of conditional fee agreements is that they should free considerable resources to enable us to extend our community legal service. That will be of great assistance to my constituents in the inner city, where legal advice is often thin on the ground. Will my hon. Friend tell us about the time scale for the community legal service and when we can hope to see some flesh on its bones?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. Unless we can control the cost of the existing traditional legal aid system, we shall not have the resources to create a community legal service. Work is being conducted as a matter of urgency in the Department. A team has been established to develop proposals for a community legal service. I hope to be able to tell my hon. Friend the outcome of that work as soon as possible.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): The Minister skated over the crucial issue of the affordability of insurance premiums for those poorer households that want to go down the conditional fee route. Which insurance companies has he spoken to? Have they given him reassurances that they can price insurance policies so that the premiums are affordable to the poorest?

Mr. Hoon: Ministers and officials in the Department have had meetings with a range of insurance companies. The speech in Cardiff last October in which my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor set out the principles has concentrated minds remarkably. Lawyers are thinking more constructively. The insurance industry is interested in such work. The average cost of PI insurance is in the order of £155. Insurance products are being made available that will avoid those costs being borne by individual litigants who are unable to meet them. There are a variety of ways of funding insurance. A partnership between insurers and lawyers to sustain the costs of litigation in this developing market should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having listened and on making it clear that this is not a cost-cutting exercise, but a means of redistributing the funds available. When litigants cannot afford to take out insurance, would it be possible for the premiums to be paid from the transitional fund? Would it be possible to extend legal expenses insurance, perhaps by tax relief, so that many more folk could choose solicitors without personal cost?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has made valuable suggestions in the past. I am grateful to him for

acknowledging that we have listened to him. I hope that he accepts that I cannot give him an answer today on his further suggestions, but we shall look at what he has said.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I have mentioned previously two savings that the hon. Gentleman's Department could make without affecting anyone. First, an appointments system in magistrates courts would save £42 million at a stroke. Secondly, in family and ancillary relief cases, arguments over the slightest issues can often result in lawyers' fees 10 or 12 times greater than the sums being argued about. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to those economies before he hits people who validly want to make personal injury claims and have no lawyer to take them on?

Mr. Hoon: The process of modernisation of the justice system will continue on a number of fronts simultaneously. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consider carefully any proposals for saving money in the magistrates courts and on family cases. We shall establish a system of contracting, which will bear down on the considerable costs of family work.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in most areas of public expenditure, there are robust mechanisms to ensure the quality of the service that the public are paying for? Is the proposal for allowing perhaps only a limited number of expert firms to take on medical negligence work a first step so that in other areas where specialist legal knowledge is needed, we might examine ways of ensuring quality for people who depend on legal aid?

Mr. Hoon: That is exactly the direction in which the Government intend to go. I hope that the use of experts in relation to medical negligence cases will establish a useful precedent for the use of expert lawyers elsewhere. Once Parliament has approved any legislation that we bring forward, contracting will allow us to contract only with those who are expert and knowledgeable in particular areas of law. That seems a wholly welcome development, for the benefit of practitioners, and, above all, for the benefit of those whose cases go before the courts.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister will be aware that many disadvantaged people use law centres to access the legal system. Law centres depend on voluntary workers, solicitors and bits of local authority spending. Does he envisage direct Government support for law centres as part of his legal aid reform package?

Mr. Hoon: Very much so. Indeed, in the summer, Parliament approved changes in statutory instruments that allow legal aid money to be used to pay the salaries of lawyers who work in law centres and for citizens advice bureaux and similar advice-giving agencies. As part of the community legal service, I look forward to an extension of that provision, to move the traditional legal aid away from simply supporting particular cases towards supporting institutions that are providing advice and assistance to those most in need.

Mr. Ross Cranston: I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that, parallel to the changes in the legal aid system, we need to


be thinking about new ways of resolving disputes? I know that his Department is involved in developing protocols, for example. Does he agree with the Woolf inquiry recommendation that private ombudsmen or alternative forms of dispute resolution need to be encouraged?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend was a very distinguished member of the inquiry. He probably knows rather more about the details of the preparation than even I do. I am most grateful to him for his suggestions. The Government are determined to develop alternatives to going to court. Mediation is certainly one. A range of other options are available to us. Anything that can reduce the cost and time taken in litigation must be welcomed.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the Minister agree that one of the consequences of the proposals is that the power of the state will be greatly increased? The system will involve discrimination by the state about which categories of litigation should command state support through legal aid.
In that context, the Minister made a differentiation in ring fencing housing cases but excluded, as an example, disputes between neighbours over boundaries. It is my experience that disputes over boundaries often involve the harassment of a person with no means by a neighbour with considerable means and a willingness to resort to litigation, which makes the life of the former a complete misery. How is the distinction between the two categories of housing and boundary disputes to be drawn?

Mr. Hoon: If the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, I did not entirely follow his reasoning about the power of the state. That may be my fault. I assure him that legal aid will continue to be available to those who wish to bring actions against the state in its various guises.
On neighbourhood disputes, the issue is not whether the state has an interest in determining who should or should not bring a case but whether it is possible to fund such a case—whether by legal aid or some other means. We are simply proposing—I hope that the hon. Member will respond to the consultation—that, in disputes between neighbours, particularly over where a fence should be or how much land is owned by one party or the other, a fund is available which allows such litigation to take place on the basis of conditional fees, rather than having to expend taxpayers' valuable and scarce resources on paying for such private disputes.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: May I welcome my hon. Friend's statement? Those who have been involved professionally in this area know that radical reform to improve access to justice is long overdue. However, as I am sure that he would agree, difficult questions need to be resolved. Will any fixed costs under any fast track for litigation which may be developed take into account the fact that, to some extent, solicitors will be using successful cases to subsidise unsuccessful cases?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend knows that the question of fixed costs and the regime that will operate are subject to separate consultations. He has made his views on the matter known on previous occasions. We are still

considering the results of that consultation, and will continue to do so before bringing specific proposals before Parliament.

Mr. Steve Webb: On affordability, the Minister suggested that the figure of £150 or so, which would be way beyond the means of the poor, might be covered by some sort of further insurance for legal expenses. However, as the poor typically cannot afford to insure even the contents of their homes, would not taking out further insurance—unless they were forced to do so—be the last thing that they would think of doing?

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry if I gave that impression to the hon. Gentleman. What, essentially, I would say about such cases is that there is no reason why innovative insurance products should not take up the cost of the up-front insurance—it is not always absolutely necessary for someone to pay the £150 in advance of litigation. Alternatively, there is no reason why a firm of lawyers, confident of the outcome, should not meet the cost of insurance in an appropriate case. I sought to explain that we expect partnerships to develop between lawyers and insurance companies, perhaps involving the banking sector, too, to allow such cases to go to court for such litigants.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Like other Members, I am worried about medical negligence cases, especially the serious cases involving the death of a young breadwinner. Is my hon. Friend aware that many such cases are carried all the way almost to the day of entering court, when everything is almost proven, but that, at the last minute before the court hearing, solicitors try to put pressure on plaintiffs to drop cases or to accept paltry damages out of court, on the ground that the legal aid, which appears to have been capped, is running out? Does he agree that when so much legal aid money has been spent and the case is almost proven, it should go to court so that justice is seen to be done? I have given my hon. Friend an example of such a case, although obviously I cannot cite the details now.

Mr. Hoon: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, and I would certainly welcome from him in writing the details of any particular case; I hope that he will accept that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a particular case at this stage.
It is unlikely that a legal aid certificate will run out. One of the problems with legal aid is often that once it is granted it supports a case to the conclusion of a court hearing, even when those who have heard the case might judge that it was not entirely appropriate for it to have been brought in the first place. The Department has received several representations from judges questioning whether legal aid should ever have been granted in certain cases.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that our proposals for medical negligence cases will guarantee access to legal aid for the moment for those who presently enjoy it, but will also point the way to significant change by ensuring that only those who are expert and specialist in the field will be able to act on behalf of plaintiffs. I hope that that safeguard will satisfy him that we are carefully considering the position of such plaintiffs.

Mr. David Kidney: Several hon. Members have made suggestions about the best use of any savings


to public funds that may result from conditional fee agreements. Can the Minister confirm that such savings will be available for use, rather than being returned to the Treasury? If so, what will be the role of regional legal services committees in deciding their own regional priorities on such matters as extending eligibility and paying for more local law centres?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. I have made it clear that to fund our manifesto commitment to create a community legal service, the Government need first to bring the costs of traditional legal aid under control. When we have done so, we can consider ways of funding the community legal service. We see the regional committees as providing a local element in terms of identifying the needs of different parts of the country. In rural areas, there may be different needs and priorities, and we expect that the regional committees will be in a position to identify those and to communicate local needs and concerns to the Legal Aid Board.

Welfare of Broiler Chickens

Mr. Bill Etherington: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems.
It is almost two years to the day since my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) proposed a similar Bill. I thank him for his endeavours, and I pay tribute to Lord Beaumont for his work in the Lords on this matter. I should also like to thank Compassion in World Farming, and its legal and political officer, Peter Stevenson, for their assistance, advice and encouragement.
To avoid any confusion, I should point out that two flocks of hens are reared in this country. One, battery hens, is reared purely to provide eggs. That involves birds being kept in small cages. I have seen this, and I was not terribly impressed by the system. The other flock is broiler chickens, which are raised purely for meat. Over 80 per cent. of those birds are kept indoors in captivity.
I propose the Bill because the only legislation on the matter—which, in my view, is totally inadequate—is the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994. Although the regulations cover battery hens, cattle and pigs, there is no regulation covering broiler hens. This matter needs to be addressed and corrected. All we have at the moment is a Ministry of Agriculture code of practice which is inadequate in the way in which it addresses the density of birds on the ground and, according to the British Poultry Meat Federation—which is not sponsoring the Bill—is not adhered to and has no legal status.
There can be up to 40,000 birds in large sheds deprived of natural light. As long ago as 1992, the Farm Animal Welfare Council advised legally binding regulations, rather than leaving the matter to what is little better than self-regulation by the breeders.
The underlying problem is the selective breeding and rich diet feeding of the birds, which enables them to reach maximum weight in only six weeks—twice the speed of 35 years ago. This leads to endemic problems with the strength of the legs of the birds, and the failure to match the increasing body weight leads to crippling leg failure. Academic research has estimated that as many as 180 million birds per annum suffer in this way. The Farm Animal Welfare Council working group found such problems on practically every farm it visited.
Professor Webster, of Bristol university's veterinary school, has been particularly scathing after carrying out extensive academic research on the matter. It has been found that rapid forced growth affects the heart and lungs of the bird, and that the problem of dirty litter exacerbates the leg injuries. However, the British Poultry Meat Federation has objected to the wording of the clause in the Bill which refers to clean and dry litter.
I do not want to get bogged down in statistical nit picking. That has been used for many years in this House, and everywhere else, to try to cloud arguments. I will go no further than to refer to a judgment made last year by Mr. Justice Bell, who was dealing with the McDonald's libel case. He found that the overcrowding of the birds was "intentional and unnecessary", and, in his judgment, cruel. He found that the leg problems affected at least 7 per cent. of broilers. He also said that the welfare of


between 7 and 31 per cent. of the birds was compromised by leg problems. I am not too concerned whether the percentage is seven or 31—whatever it is, it is too much. Regulations are needed to eradicate this unnecessary and cruel system.
The judge also examined the issue of broiler breeders—the small number of birds that are kept only for breeding. As they are fed so intensively in the early part of their lives, they have, in effect, to be starved so that they do not become too weak to breed, which leads to intense hunger and great discomfort. The judge said that it was highly likely that the birds felt hungry in human terms, because they spent an inordinate proportion of their time foraging, and consumed large amounts of litter.
Finally and most damningly, he stated:
My conclusion is that the practice of rearing breeders for appetite, that is to feel especially hungry, and then restricting their feed with the effect of keeping them hungry, is cruel. It is a well-planned device for profit at the expense of suffering of the birds.
In his summary, he said:
I find that there have been cruel practices relating to … the restriction of feed for breeders, the leg problems of broilers bred for weight gain, the stocking density in the last few weeks of the females' lives at least, the catching and handling of the broilers when caught for slaughter".
He also criticised some aspects of slaughter, although I shall not refer to them, as that is not the subject of the Bill.
I have given a copy of the Bill to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, although he has not commented on it to me. I have also given copies to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—which, when I have talked to it, seemed to be in favour—and to others. I urge all hon. Members, if they have not already done so, to watch the video produced by Compassion in World Farming, which shows graphically, far better than I could hope to describe, that the industry is barbaric.
The industrial spokesman of the British Poultry Meat Federation, Mr. Bradnock, did not invite me to visit any of the farms to which he referred. I accept that there have been improvements—largely because of public pressure; the public now perceive more clearly than ever before the

value of animal welfare—but the industry and its representatives have totally refused to endorse any of the Bill's provisions.
The Bill would ensure that
the broiler chickens are stocked at a density which does not exceed 21 kilogrammes per square metre;
the flock size does not exceed 3,000 broiler chickens".
It would also ensure that the chickens have legs that are strong enough to bear their weight, so that they can live in comfort. Density needs to be reduced so that flocks can be thoroughly inspected at least twice each day—any chicken that shows signs of discomfort can then be dealt with humanely.
Another of the Bill's provisions is that the litter should be kept clean and dry at all times. I should have thought that all hon. Members would accept that—unfortunately, the poultry meat industry will not. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, who is present, will introduce Government legislation, because, as everyone knows, ten-minute Bills have little chance of being enacted. Nevertheless, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Chris Mullin, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Harry Cohen, Angela Smith, Mr. Terry Lewis, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Roger Gale and Mr. Nigel Jones.

WELFARE OF BROILER CHICKENS

Mr. Bill Etherington accordingly presented a Bill to protect the health and welfare of broiler chickens kept in indoor husbandry systems: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed [Bill 136].

Mr. John MacGregor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not outrageous that we should have only 50 minutes left to discuss by far one of the most important parts of the Scotland Bill, because of the deliberate positioning of a long Government statement before it? Is there any way in which, in the interests of the House, the time can be extended?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but we are governed by a resolution of the House.

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23 February].

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 81

SCOTTISH REPRESENTATION AT WESTMINSTER

Amendment proposed [23 February]: No. 258, in page 37, line 32, to leave out from the word 'is' to end of line 33 and insert the words
'120 per cent. of the electoral quota for England.'.—[Dr Fox.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: clause 81 stand part.
Amendment No. 259, in clause 114, page 52, line 13, at beginning insert—
'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.
Amendment No. 260, in clause 114, page 52, line 17, at end add—
'(3) With the exception of an order relating to section 81, no order may be made under subsection (1) until each House of Parliament has approved any draft Order in Council which may be required to give effect to the first report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland to be submitted after 31st December 1997 under section 3(2) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986.'.
New clause 6—Restrictions on voting rights of Scottish members of House of Commons—
'As from the day on which the Parliament first meets, no member of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Scotland shall be entitled to vote in that House on any matter certified by the Speaker as relating solely to another part, or other parts, of the United Kingdom.'.
New clause 16—Restrictions on voting rights of Scottish members of House of Commons (No. 2)—
'Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Scotland may continue to participate in any vote in that House unless the Speaker deems the vote to relate to matters exclusive to England, or to England and Wales.'.
New clause 19—Restriction on voting rights of Scottish Members (Committees on English Affairs)—
'.—No member of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Scotland shall be entitled to vote in, or participate in any other proceedings of, any committee of that House established under any enactment or by the Standing Orders of that House, the functions of which are to consider matters exclusively in relation to England which are not reserved matters within the terms of Schedule 5 to this Act.'.
New clause 22—Voting rights of Scottish members of the United Kingdom Parliament—
'.—Scottish members of the United Kingdom Parliament shall by standing orders be entitled to speak but not to vote on matters which arise in that Parliament affecting only those parts of the United Kingdom other than Scotland.'.amendment No. 259, in clause 114, page 52, line 13, at beginning insert—

'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The guillotine falls at 5.30 pm, so we have 50 minutes. I hope that the Lords have a serious discussion of the clause, because it represents a geological flaw in the Bill.
With the benefit of the marvellous advantage of hindsight, we can see that it is perhaps unfortunate that, in 1977, the late Enoch Powell invented the sobriquet "the West Lothian question" as shorthand for the real dilemma with which I wearied Michael Foot and the late John Smith, who was doing the job now performed with less overt bad temper by my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution. If my hon. Friend entertains exasperations when I speak, he is better at concealing them than John Smith was.
I have come to believe that Mr. Powell did the argument a disservice, because the shorthand tends to camouflage the real dilemma, which is not about parliamentary niceties or, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put it, the Schleswig-Holstein question, but about the exercise of power and the principle of direct relations between government and the governed. Power devolved is not power retained.

Mr. John McAllion: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says, "Hear, hear," and his interpretation is important; we do not want him, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and my other hon. Friends to feel deceived.
In practical terms, I do not suppose that matters will come to a head during this Parliament, in which one party has a majority of 180. The size of the majority submerges the problem. As soon as Holyrood, or Strathclyde house, or whatever we call it, is inaugurated, the Chief Whip will have to get along without my vote on purely English business.
The self-evident problem becomes acute when a Government party has to depend on its favourable majority in Scotland to get its English business through the House of Commons. Then the Government really will be asked: how come whoever is the Member of Parliament for Linlithgow or for Livingston can vote—and vote decisively—on policies for Liverpool and London on matters that not only English Members but Scottish Members cannot trespass upon in relation to Linlithgow or Livingston, unless of course, clause 27(7) will be operated differently from how we have come to believe?
To put it in practical terms, I suppose that it is really the Two Feathers in Hebden Bridge question so beloved of Bernard Ingham. I will spare the House the expletives, but the Two Feathers question is this, "What are all those … jocks doing coming … telling us what to do when they've got a … Parliament of their own?"
That is the question that will be asked. Therefore, my question is, how long can such a situation last? It simply cannot endure in anything like the form that the Bill proposes. Whatever else it is, the Bill is not a settlement. The deal must not be seen by the English majority, either at the outset or as experience builds up, as giving Scotland one-sided privileges and advantages of an unacceptable type and scale.
We all have to curtail our speeches, so the House will forgive me for reading one quotation from Sir Michael Quinlan, one of the cleverest civil servants of his generation, who was called in by John Smith to tackle precisely those problems. Writing in The Independent on 2 January 1995, Sir Michael said:
But this leaves the enormous and still unanswered 'West Lothian' question … If we take away from Westminster and give to a Scottish Assembly effective law-making power over, say, education, health and transport in Scotland by what possible right do the 70-odd"—
or 60-odd—
Scottish MPs at Westminster continue to vote on education, health and transport for England? But if they are excluded, there stands to occur a situation—given particularly that, while Scotland is usually Labour, England is usually Conservative—in which there is a settled Labour majority at Westminster on some subjects and a Conservative one on others. (That would have been the case for certainly three and probably four of the five Parliaments in which Labour has governed since 1945.)
Such a political arrangement would not be coalition or even cohabitation. Given the interdependence, especially in tax and expenditure terms, of large areas of public administration, it is simply not possible to run coherent parliamentary government in this way.
That is the considered view of the civil servant who, along with Sir John Garlick, was asked by John Smith, Bruce Millan and Michael Foot to give his mind to the problem in the late 1970s. Sir Michael Quinlan's view at least has to be answered in depth, and it cannot be answered this afternoon before 5.30 pm. On Report or in the House of Lords, we should hear a considered Government answer.
Finally, judging by all the arguments so far, I see no reason to retract the view that I expressed constantly and daily during the referendum, that, unfortunately, we are on a motorway without exit to an independent state.

Mr. John Major: I echo the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) about the utter unacceptability of the fact that the time permitted to discuss this, perhaps the most crucial and central part of the whole Bill—the part upon which this whole constitutional experiment may founder to the damage of the whole United Kingdom—has been squeezed by a statement that could have been left until tomorrow, and an important Bill on broiler chickens.

Mr. McAllion: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: No, I shall not give way. I have things to say that are more important than answering the hon. Gentleman's questions.
I am delighted to speak after the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Throughout the consideration of the Bill, he has bravely identified the difficulties inherent in it, as he did with its predecessor many years ago. He and I do not always agree. In Hebden Bridge terms, there have been moments when others, not myself, might have referred to him as a … nuisance, but the way in which he has campaigned against a very bad and blatantly wrong Bill that is self-evidently damaging to the United Kingdom redounds strongly to his credit. I much admire what he has done.
This bad Bill will do more damage to the United Kingdom than any Bill for generations, and will institutionalise advantages for Scotland and for Scottish Members of Parliament. The Bill will do more: over time, it will institutionalise resentment against Scotland and Scottish Members of Parliament, which is not a light matter for those of us who care about the unity of the United Kingdom.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman Will forgive me, I shall not. Many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief.
The key point—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The right hon. Gentleman has not attended a debate before today.

Mr. Major: The debate is brief because there is a guillotine at 5.30 pm, and the Government have outrageously wasted most of the available time.
The key point—what has become known as the West Lothian question—is the way in which the Bill will unbalance the constitution. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow said, what the Bill proposes is unsustainable. Bluntly, what justification is there for Scottish Members of Parliament being able to vote on education, health and other matters affecting my constituents in England, when they cannot vote on those matters as they affect their own constituents?
There is no logical reason for Scottish Members of Parliament being able to vote on matters that affect the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, when English, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of Parliament will be unable to vote on those matters as they affect people who live Scotland.
What would happen—the hon. Member for Linlithgow touched gently upon this point—if a Government party had an overall majority in the United Kingdom, but was in the minority in England?

Mr. James Wallace: What happened when the Government party was in the minority in Scotland?

Mr. Major: If the hon. and learned Gentleman cares to look back, he will see that previous Labour Governments have sustained a majority with Scottish Members of Parliament. The difference is that the Bill proposes that the Scottish Parliament will have exclusive responsibility for certain issues and the power to tax. If he does not understand that, he should listen to the debates and then contribute.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: No, the hon. Gentleman can make his speech in a few moments.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. The former Prime Minister, for whom I have some regard, seems to be unaware that we are continuing a


debate that we were having 10 days ago. Is it in order to attend the second half of a Committee debate and refuse to take interventions?

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is up to right hon. and hon. Members to decide whether to take interventions.

Mr. Major: I shall deal with that point briefly. Of course the debate was going on the other evening, but it was agreed that there would be a further two hours of debate today. There has not been a further two hours of debate, and some hon. Members who want to speak on this issue will not be able to do so. I intend to be brief so that the hon. Gentleman can contribute, if only he will cease interrupting.
I return to the point about what will happen in England. Will the English be treated less favourably constitutionally than the Scots under this Bill and the Welsh under the Government of Wales Bill? That is not sustainable. With their majority, the Government can drive the Bill through the House, and show every intention of doing so. I beg the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution to consider what that will do over time to opinion in England. Does he really want to arouse nationalism across an England that resents the Scots and the Welsh? I do not want that to happen; yet I fear that the nature of the Bill, and the way in which the Government are driving it through the Commons, will lead to such an outcome.
Is there a credible answer to the West Lothian question? Not without a rebalancing of the constitution once the Bill has become law, as it now almost certainly will.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not.
No one in the House has any doubt about my feeling on the issue over many years. I have never made any secret of the fact that I think that the sort of constitutional change that is proposed is very short-sighted. It is being introduced for party political advantage, and over time—a long time—it will backfire. I am concerned about the long-term future of the United Kingdom, not the short-term advantage of politicians who see some advantage in supporting the Bill at the present time.
The only gainers from the Bill, over time, will be those who genuinely favour—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) does, and has made no secret of it—a separatist Scotland, a Scotland broken away from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government, who claim that that is not their position, will have to answer at the bar of history for having brought about circumstances that may create exactly that eventuality.
If the Bill goes through, it will be necessary to bring about further constitutional change to minimise the damage and the resentment across the United Kingdom that the Bill will create. I do not know whether that means an English Parliament—which I do not myself favour—an English Grand Committee, or some other stratagem. Clearly, much more thought will be needed than we can give this afternoon, but changes there will undoubtedly need to be once the Bill is on the statute book.
I say that changes will have to come, because the constitutional vandalism of this ill-thought-out pig's breakfast of a Bill will demand further change elsewhere in the United Kingdom to protect the position of people elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and to protect the working practices of the House.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Major: Surely the hon. Gentleman heard me say that I would not give way. I want as many hon. Members as possible to be able to speak.
I have made it clear repeatedly over the past seven years, and over the past few months when the Bill has been contemplated, that I absolutely understand, and admire, the sense of national pride in Scotland. No one disputes that. I believe, however, that the Scots will find that the menu that has been laid before them is a menu without price. There is a price to be paid, in Scotland and elsewhere—

Mr. McAllion: You paid the price.

Mr. Major: If I did, I paid the price for standing up for what I thought was right for the United Kingdom. I did not stand up for what I thought was right for Labour party political interests, which is what the present Government have done.
Scotland cannot have extra privileges; it cannot have more public expenditure; it cannot have excessive representation in the House; and it cannot have constitutional advantages over the rest of the United Kingdom—if that United Kingdom is to remain united, as I wish it to. This is a divisive Bill. Let us not mince words. Not so much in the short term, as in the long term, the Bill will damage the unity of the United Kingdom dramatically. It brings change, and it will create a demand for more change. It is a constitutional whirlwind, and we will reap the harvest—not just in the House, where we can cope with our procedures, but in regard to something far more important and far more long-standing: the unity of the United Kingdom itself.
On that issue, the House may not be able to make changes in the Bill, given the majority in favour of it; but the time will come when those who railroaded it through will have to answer for what they have done, and others will have to correct the errors that they have made.

5 pm

Mr. Ian Davidson: It is a privilege to follow the former Prime Minister. However, it is fair to say that he has espoused views that were espoused during the general election campaign; views that led to the Conservative party's representation in Scotland being reduced from 10 seats to no seats—"Nul points", as one would say in the Eurovision song contest—and which led his party to the biggest defeat in living memory in a British general election.
The British people have taken account of the arguments that the former Prime Minister makes, and rejected them decisively. The Scottish people had the opportunity to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the debates before the referendum, and almost every part of Scotland rejected those views


overwhelmingly. Is it not significant that the only Scots that the right hon. Gentleman can find to argue his case are those who could not get elected in Scotland, but had to flee south of the border to find a safe seat in England? In Scotland there is no support for his views.
Those who seek to destroy the Union speak with the former Prime Minister's voice, and that of the nationalists. The status quo before the general election was not sustainable. Scots made it clear that they wanted to retain the Union, but that they wanted a system of devolved authority—which, I am glad to say, the Government are setting up.
However, I return, if I may, to amendment No. 258. I took the trouble to be in the Chamber during the previous discussions on this matter and, although I welcome the former Prime Minister's belated interest in these matters, it is significant that this is the first time, I believe, that he has attended the Committee.
The Conservative amendment suggests not that Scottish representation should be reduced to the same level as that in England and Wales, but that it should be reduced even below that, so that the electoral quota for Scotland should be 120 per cent. of that for England. Evidently the Tories have written off Scotland. They realise that they are, and will remain, unpopular there, so they intend to play the English nationalist card.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned Enoch Powell, I recalled how Enoch Powell used to deplore racism while he was stirring it up. Those who deplore English nationalism while stirring it up are doing the same thing. They are trying to pander to the worst in our society because they have no positive suggestions to make on this subject, or on many others.
I do not accept that England is an undifferentiated mass. I have been struck by the welcome given to Scottish devolution by many people in England who want something similar for their part of the country. I believe that differing speeds of devolution will develop throughout England and Wales. I believe that the constitution of this country can accept anomalies; that it can accept differences; that it can accept different ways of progressing.
If the House is supreme, I see no reason why it cannot decide that some matters will be devolved to Scotland, to Wales, to London or to the north of England, without shattering the essential community of the kingdom. It is not as though powers were being devolved in a way that bypassed the House. A decision of the House will devolve those powers. In that way, the House, having taken that decision, is consciously deciding to live with the elements of anomaly that might flow from it.
My hon. Friend the former Member for West Lothian, now the hon. Member for Linlithgow, made a very interesting contribution. I enjoyed his speech of resignation from the Labour Whip. I am struck by the extent to which all Labour Members except "Oor Tam" are out of step. The basis on which Labour candidates stood at the general election was quite clear, and we clearly presented our case to the electorate. It is also clear that his arguments about Labour Members feeling obliged to refrain from voting on other matters did not reflect Labour's policy.
The poll tax was imposed on Scotland by the votes of English Members. In Committee and in the House, I and many others watched local government in Scotland being butchered against the will of the overwhelming majority of Scottish Members by an English majority. That was accepted to some extent because Scotland was part of the Union, and Parliament had decided how such matters were to be arranged. Similarly, it is reasonable and fair to conclude that, when Parliament determines that there is to be devolution, those who were previously in government and who call themselves democrats should be prepared to accept Parliament's democratic will.
The tactics that are being adopted, especially by some of those who I thought had the seniority and experience to know better, remind me of the baby who throws his rattle out of the pram because it cannot get its own way. It is about time the Opposition accepted that they lost the election, that we and those who support us have a clear mandate to implement our policies, and that we intend to do that.
I welcome the fact that the Tories have written off Scotland, and that they will presumably decide not to put up candidates for election to the Scottish Parliament. That gives us an even greater prospect of a large Co-operative party representation in that Parliament.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends—

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. To my certain memory, Scottish National party Members were standing in the earlier debate and were not called. They have been rising in this debate and have not been called. Has the Chair taken any cognisance of the fact that the Scottish National party currently has four times the public support of the Conservative party in Scotland and that we have a right to have our view heard in the Committee?

Sir Robert Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Liberal Democrat Members also rose in both debates, and we have a distinctive Scottish view to put to the Committee. That view takes some of what Conservative Members were trying to achieve but puts it in a constructive form to try to get something out of the Government. That voice has not been heard in Committee. Amendment No. 258 has not been exposed to scrutiny in terms of its threat to the Union because of the way in which it debases the Scottish voter on United Kingdom issues. Those issues should have been put to the Committee.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Do you agree that it does not add to the dignity of Parliament when the most important constitutional issue that faces us will receive a total of one hour and 15 minutes debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is for the Chairman to select who will speak and I remind hon. Members that points of order use up the little time that is left.

Mr. Ancram: I should like to respond to the points of order by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). It may not have occurred to


them that, for the first time in our discussions on the Bill, we are debating the impact of constitutional reform on the rest of the United Kingdom. For that reason my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and some of my hon. Friends who are not Scottish Members have a direct interest in the matter. I, too, deplore the fact that the debate has been curtailed. That does not bode well for the spirit of agreed programmes in future. I give notice that I shall seek to return to that issue on Report.
The debate on the amendment, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is simply about unfinished business. We face a constitutional vacuum that has been created by a process of one-sided devolution. If that vacuum is left unfilled it will in time seriously destabilise our constitution. It is caused by the residual imbalance that has been left by unilateral devolution to Scotland and has become known as the West Lothian question, but which more accurately should now be known as the English dimension.
The debate is largely, if not exclusively, about the role of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster after devolution and the constitutional propriety of their being able to vote on English matters which, because of devolution, they cannot vote on in relation to their own constituents. It points to the inevitably part-time nature of the Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster after devolution and the consequent dangers of de facto marginalisation. It foreshadows the potential for mutual alienation between Scots and English, which was so rightly foreshadowed in the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon.
It is because of those dangers and because of our interest in avoiding them that we believe that they must be faced up to now. If ever there has been a time for not burying the political head in the sand, this is it. Even if the manner of its announcement through the columns of The Scotsman this morning was a gross insult to the House, the Government's new-found readiness to take the question seriously, at last, must be welcomed.
This debate is not about doing down the Scots or stirring up the English, however much nationalists and others would like to portray it as such. That suggestion not only insults the intelligence of both Scots and English, but irresponsibly disregards the fundamental problem.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: No, I shall not give way as time is short. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am usually very good at giving way, but I want to make my speech and give others the opportunity to speak.
If we do not begin to explore now how the problem might be resolved, we will live bitterly to regret it in years to come. Even the Government, if The Scotsman was right this morning, now realise that. The amendments were tabled to begin the exploration. I am sometimes asked why we have only now started on this process. The reason is simple—the question has arisen only because of this Bill. What, in terms of the referendum, was a Scottish debate exclusive in its franchise to Scotland, is now a United Kingdom debate because the outcome of the Bill will impact upon the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole.
There are no simple answers and no quick fixes. There are no off-the-shelf constitutional solutions. We must identify the options or the elements from which solutions

might be drawn and then evaluate the feasibility and desirability of any particular approach. For those reasons, the amendments are, by definition, probing. They are the early pieces on the board. There is only one that we will press to a Division because of its immediate significance, as I shall explain later.
Amendment No. 258 deals with the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster after devolution. It stems from the principle already enshrined in the provisions of the clause that devolution removes the justification for the relative over-representation that currently exists in favour of Scotland in the Westminster Parliament. The clause would establish relative parity—but I have to say that changing the numbers will not, of itself, answer the West Lothian question. Numbers are the symptom rather than the cause. They are not, and never have been, a constant, but they can play an important part in creating both the perception and the reality of fairness and balance.
If we are to understand the dangers of the constitutional vacuum in relation to numbers, we must look at the role of the Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster after devolution.

Mr. Eric Clarke: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I have said that I will not give way.
By definition, the Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster, after devolution, will have far less to do than his English counterparts. Leaving aside the time-consuming constituency mail bag, which would largely disappear, the Scottish Member of Parliament would no longer be able to ask parliamentary questions on domestic constituency matters such as housing, health, education, roads, planning and so on, or take part in debates on those matters. How much of what is left will be taken up by English matters, questions, debates, votes and other issues relevant to the United Kingdom Parliament? If the English aspects are taken away, what will be left?
On any view, the Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster, after devolution, will be part time and will be seen to be part time. Dangers flow from that. The lessons of Northern Ireland and Westminster during the Stormont years are salutary. Would the same effect of marginalisation of Scottish Members of Parliament occur after the Scottish Parliament is up and running? Would the part-time perception of those Members of Parliament further exacerbate resentment if strictly English business was carried, on the backs of their votes? Those of us who believe in the Union Parliament see those as real dangers that must be averted. To do that, we need to look at the question of numbers in this context, even if, at this stage, it is only to probe.
There is one further important issue relating to numbers and boundary changes, which arises under amendment No. 260. Under the provisions of the Bill, there will be an inevitable reduction in the number of Members of Parliament after the boundary commission's report, which in turn will mean a commensurate reduction in both categories of Members of the Scottish Parliament. Under the Bill, within five years of being set up and Members being elected, the Scottish Parliament will be subject to a cull. Between 25 and 30 of the 129 MSPs will disappear. It is hard to see how that can be in the best interests of an infant Parliament striving to establish itself, knowing all


the time that it is about to be reduced, but not knowing how or where, and with its Members constantly living under the threat of the axe.
It therefore makes sense that if such a reduction is to take place, it should happen before the Parliament comes into being. Our amendment would achieve that. It would not cause any delay because if the boundary commission immediately began its work under the revised criteria, there is no reason why it should not be completed and implemented in time for the elections to the Scottish Parliament. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I give notice that, at the appropriate moment, I will press it to a Division.
5.15 pm
I want to look at the pieces on the board relating to the English dimension. One that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is the Government's initiative to create regional assemblies in England. He rightly warned that it would be the thin end of the wedge to the Europe of regions, and, indeed, there is no evidence of any widespread demand for such regionalisation in England. It does not arise out of the amendments before us, so I add only that it would not, in any event, answer the West Lothian question, unless those regions were given legislative powers which are not even available to the National Assembly for Wales. In fact, it is part of a different, if no less worrying agenda.
That leads me to the three most obvious options that offer themselves to resolve the constitutional vacuum, which is the main object of our amendments. The option of an English parliament, separate from this Parliament, was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East and for Woodspring. It was canvassed in a private Member's Bill in January by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). It would certainly resolve the immediate problem, but it would create others. This Parliament would be left effectively as a federal parliament which, without major reform, would contain none of the checks and balances that a federal system would usually require. It would encapsulate the problem that, of the four elements within the United Kingdom, one—England—would represent more than 80 per cent. of the whole. The imbalance would be overwhelming and almost impossible to resolve with any degree of overall fairness. I can think of no comparable example elsewhere from which we might seek answers to the problem, but it must nevertheless remain a piece on the board.
The concept of an English Grand Committee is raised in new clause 19, which again is designed to probe. It now appears suddenly to be the preferred option of the Government, possibly brought about by the honourable pressure exerted by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I have already made clear my view of the deplorable way in which the Government made known that preference, but it begs certain questions about which I have already written to the Secretary of State. I am sorry that he is not here this afternoon to answer them. However, I want to reiterate them.
We want to know the status given to the proposal—we want to know if it is agreed Government policy. Has it been discussed by the Cabinet or is it merely something

that has arisen internally from the Scottish Office? Why was the announcement of an English Grand Committee made public in a briefing from the Scottish Office, when it relates exclusively to non-Scottish matters? Are we to expect proposals to be put before the House to achieve that policy at the same time as the provisions of the Scotland Bill become operative?
There are a number of difficulties in that approach. What has been proposed would have to be more than the usual Grand Committee, which is ultimately subject to the authority of this House as a whole. For example, it would be required to take all stages of legislation relating to England, or England and Wales, if it were to resolve the West Lothian question. That would immediately raise questions about the status of the Westminster Parliament while the English Grand Committee was in session. It would also raise the financial questions alluded to by the hon. Member for Linlithgow last week. Without its own resources, what would be its relationship to the Treasury, which would inevitably remain a United Kingdom Department? In the event of financial conflict, which of the two would govern, and could a United Kingdom Government with a small majority reliant on Scotland actually pursue an economic policy of any consequence?
The final obvious option—which might be described as designation—merges in our new clause 16 and in new clause 6, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East and for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whereby Scottish Members could not vote on matters certified as being exclusive to England and Wales.
Designation is seemingly the neatest and simplest answer to the English dimension. However, it would immediately create two categories of Member of Parliament at Westminster and threatens the concept of a Union Parliament, in which all Members of Parliament are equal. It would also again beg the financial question: what restraint would be put on English Members in not undermining the overall economic strategy of the United Kingdom Government, while still allowing them to exercise their exclusive legislative rights? The potential for conflict immediately becomes apparent.
In yesterday's newspapers, the hon. Member for Linlithgow unilaterally declared a self-denying ordinance of voluntary designation. Although I have no doubt that he would honourably abide by such an ordinance, he knows—he alluded to it himself in this debate—that the pre-1972 Ulster experience was not so secure and was not without its price. That experience ran seriously into the shoals in 1965, when Northern Ireland Members attempted to reverse their marginalisation and to reassert their involvement in the major political and economic issues of the day by voting on steel nationalisation—which did not impact directly on Northern Ireland, although its wider economic effects certainly did. The unhappy reaction of the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, provides a good example of the difficulties of designating with any precision or fairness in those circumstances.
Therefore, there is no option which is not in some way constitutionally flawed—although that does not mean that we should simply jettison all options. There may be variants or combinations of options that are as yet unexplored. There may be other, undiscovered options with which current options can be melded. That is why


this debate, and the wider debate outside the House—which I hope that we are helping to generate—are so important.
The corrosive question of the English dimension will not go away. Its consequences may not be immediate, but that is no excuse for ignoring it. Neither is it sufficient to say that we would not have started from here, and simply walk away. An answer must be found, and that answer must be found before the problem arises. When the problem arises—as, one day, it inevitably will arise—it will be too late, and the fires of nationalism that will ignite on both sides of the border will tear at the heart of the United Kingdom.
We will not resolve the problem today; but the search for a solution starts today. We must not fail.

Mr. Salmond: I should like to spend a couple of minutes on the mean-spirited and foolish speech by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). On the Friday before the general election, I spent the evening in Northampton with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), where we participated in a bout of "Any Questions"—during which I was cheered to echo in middle England, and the former Chancellor was booed off the stage. If there had been an election that night at that meeting, the Scottish National party would have won Northampton. On that programme, I asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could name one instance this century in which any piece of domestic English legislation had been dictated by the votes of Scottish Members, and he could not give one single example.
If we contrast that record with how, on one occasion after another, and on one issue after another, two successive Prime Ministers—Lady Thatcher and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon—forced down the throats of the Scottish people specifically Scottish legislation, the breathtaking temerity of the former Prime Minister in talking in this debate about the unacceptable theoretical possibility of the same happening in reverse is obvious.
I do not object to an English Parliament—I think that it would be a thoroughly good idea—and I have absolutely no objection to an English Grand Committee. In the House, I have never knowingly interfered in English domestic business unless it had a clear Scottish implication. What I find totally unacceptable is the mean-spirited and divisive nature of the former Prime Minister's speech—crowding out hon. Members who spoke in the first half of the debate, and showing the House the face not only of English nationalism but of English prejudice.

Sir Robert Smith: Amendment No. 258 deserves to be fully exposed for the threat that it is to the Union. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was very unwise to speak in a debate at the Bill's Committee stage without interacting with Committee members. Had he taken interventions, he might have been able to explain to voters in Scotland why—for some reason—he thought that, on United Kingdom issues, one of their votes should be worth only 83 per cent. of the vote of an

English voter. If ever there were a threat to the Union, it must be amendment No. 258, and the thinking behind it. In speaking to the amendment, the right hon. Gentleman advocated denying Scottish voters the same representation in the House on United Kingdom issues as other United Kingdom voters enjoy.
It is far more important for the Government—in attempting to develop a way in which English Members of Parliament deal with only English issues—to take on board the spirit of new clauses 6, 16, 19 and 22. The history of the poll tax demonstrates, at least to Scottish Members, how bad it is for hon. Members to decide legislation that will not affect their own electors. Such a practice is bad in all circumstances.
In our declaration to the constitutional convention, we argued that if legislation has been devolved by one Parliament, it should not be voted on by representatives of that Parliament. We should like a slightly better settlement, by using the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to decide disputes. We should like the Government constructively to consider our proposals.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I should like, by way of preamble, to say a few words about the speech by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I do not think that phrases such as "constitutional vandalism" or "dogs' breakfast" are worthy of him. On 11 September, a very loud democratic voice was heard in Scotland—when 1.7 million people voted for a Scottish Parliament and 1.5 million people voted for tax-varying powers. The principle underlying that result should be respected by all hon. Members—regardless of whether they are a right hon. or hon. Member, or whether they are in or out of government. The people have spoken, and it ill behoves the House to undermine that in any way.
I tell the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that we have absolutely no plans to consider an English Parliament or an English Grand Committee.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What about this article in this morning's press?

Mr. McLeish: There was absolutely no foundation in that article—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is quite outrageous for the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to behave like that. He should know better. Will he, please, behave himself. An apology is called for.

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise without reservation.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex for his apology.
The important issue in this debate is the concern of Conservative Members. In asking the Committee to reject this group of amendments, I stress that the official Opposition are attacking the fundamental rights in the House of Scottish Members in the post-devolution era. It simply cannot be right to go down that very dangerous road. In a speech last week, the right hon.


Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) mentioned four aspects of the West Lothian question that he would like to explore, although I shall deal with only one. The second aspect he mentioned was
the withdrawal from Scottish MPs of their voting rights over all legislation that does not apply to Scotland. In other words, the creation of a two-tier Westminster Parliament.
That is the nub of the speeches made by Conservative Members in this debate. New clause 19 would apply the same standards—to exclude second-class Scots from voting in the House.
There should be no two-tier mentality in the House. Conservative Members cannot get away with blustering and expressing synthetic indignation. The simple fact is that, under that smokescreen, they are attempting to move in a very dangerous direction. There is simply—

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Can you advise the Committee, Mr. Lord, whether it is in order for the Minister to say that something is utterly impossible, whereas the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has volunteered to do precisely what the Minister is criticising?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. McLeish: I make a point of truth, Mr. Lord: in the Committee's previous five sittings, the official Opposition have scurried around, pretending that they are being supportive and respectful of the decision of 11 September—but nothing could be further from the truth. We hear talk of an English nationalist backlash. That worries me, but how real is that in the mind of the English people, as opposed to being solely in the mind of Conservative Members? If Conservatives pursue this idea, they are being anti-Union, anti-Scottish and anti the spirit of the devolution measures. Of course, that is the reality. They can pretend that they are concerned, but we have tonight exposed a core truth about the Conservative Opposition. They cannot face the results of 11 September or the fact that the Bill will strengthen the Union and is an excellent contribution to democratic accountability.
I ask the Committee to reject the amendments for the reasons that I have outlined so that we can move on and ensure that we have a strong Bill. That is the intention of the Government, the Liberals and the nationalists but not that of the Conservative Opposition—

It being half-past Five o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [23 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. As a matter of courtesy, I have tried to give the Leader of the House notice of this matter.

When the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons produced its unanimous report, my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and I commended it to the House and were glad to do so. We saw it as a constructive attempt to ensure better and more regulated scrutiny of business, and we were happy to agree to the programming of legislation.
When the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill was decided on, we readily agreed to the programming arrangements. We had no wish to frustrate the will of the Scottish people. We had no wish to filibuster, as has been evident from all the debates, but we were anxious to ensure proper, decent scrutiny of this most important constitutional legislation. However, this afternoon we have witnessed the frustration of the spirit of agreement into which we entered by the fact that the Government made a long statement which took up a full hour of the time allocated for a crucial element of the Bill.
Had the Government had to come to the House to make a statement about the situation in the Gulf or some matter of prime international importance, we would of course have accepted that it should take precedence. However, we do not believe—[Interruption.] I am seeking to make my point with cogency and courtesy, which cannot be said of the reaction of Labour Members. We do not believe that the statement this afternoon fell into that category. The spirit of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House is at risk because if what has happened this afternoon is what is going to happen to crucial legislation, we cannot co-operate.

The Second Deputy Chairman: They are not matters on which I can rule today, but I have no doubt that everyone has heard what was said and that those with responsibility for these arrangements will review matters in due course.

Mr. William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not think that there can be anything further to that point of order. We have dealt with it thoroughly.

Mr. Cash: With respect, Mr. Lord, you cannot know until you have heard my point of order. The Secretary of State for Scotland has just come into Committee. We have witnessed a disgraceful exhibition which was an attempt to curtail the debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) pointed out. The Secretary of State did not have the courtesy to reply to the debate. Is not that a matter of the utmost importance? Is not it also a disgrace and a discourtesy to the Committee?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The time allocated to the debate was decided some time ago.

Clause 83

CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES: INITIAL STATUS

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 38, line 25, after 'enactment', insert 'or by Royal Charter'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 256, in page 38, line 27, leave out from second 'functions' to end of line 28 and insert
'which relate to or affect Scotland'.
No. 93, in page 38, line 28, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line.
No. 426, in page 38, line 28, leave out
'do not relate to reserved'
and insert 'relate to devolved'.
No. 97, in page 38, line 29, at end add—
'(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5), the following bodies are cross-border public bodies for the purposes of this Act—

(a) the British Broadcasting Corporation,
(b) the Independent Television Commission,
(c) Channel 4,
(d) Channel 5,
(e) the Radio Authority, and
(f) the Radiocommunications Agency.'.


No. 100, in schedule 5, page 66, line 28, at end insert—
'The functions of the Radiocommunications Agency in relation to Scotland (but not the international negotiations for the allocation of frequencies for the provision of radiocommunications services in Scotland).'.
No. 101, in page 66, line 28, at end insert—
'The disposal of that portion which is collected in Scotland of the total revenue from the imposition of fees for wireless telegraphy licences under Part I of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.'.
No. 98, in page 75, line 32, after 'Corporation', insert
'except as regards the financing of services provided by BBC (Scotland), the appointment of a national governor representing Scotland, and the appointment and removal of the members of the Broadcasting Council for Scotland.'.
No. 99, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—'Exceptions from reservation—
The powers and functions of the Independent Television Commission in relation to—

(a) the licensing and regulation of regional television services for Scotland provided for under Part I of the Broadcasting Act 1990, as amended by Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1996,
(b) the licensing and regulation of digital television services exclusive to Scotland,
(c) the licensing and regulation of local cable services in Scotland, and,
(d) the promotion and funding of Gaelic television programmes services in Scotland.


The powers and functions of the Radio Authority in relation to—

(a) the licensing and regulation of radio programme services in Scotland,
(b) the promotion and funding of Gaelic radio programme services in Scotland.'.


No. 311, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—'Exception from reservation—
The appointment of the National Governor for Scotland of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the appointment of a Scottish member of the Independent Television Commission.'.
No. 413, in page 75, line 32, at end add—'Exception from reservation—
The promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.'.

No. 466, in page 75, line 32, at end add—Exception from reservation—
The Parliament may require the annual report of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Commission to be laid before it.'.

Ms Cunningham: I propose to speak to amendments Nos. 96 to 101 and No. 256 which stand in my name and those of my colleagues. I shall deal with them in two groups—one relates to clause 83 and the other to schedule 5—although they are all, in the main, to do with broadcasting.
I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 256. This set of amendments returns us to the vexed question of the powers of the Scottish Parliament vis-a-vis bodies not dealing with devolved matters or bodies and individuals based outside Scotland. We had an extensive debate on the generality of this subject when we discussed clause 23, the amendments thereto and the powers of the Parliament to require the submission of evidence, both oral and written, so I shall try hard not to reprise the whole of that debate.
Clause 83, however, differs from clause 23 because it specifically designates bodies that are to be defined as cross-border public bodies. In the guidance notes provided when the legislation was published, clauses 83 to 85 were described as fulfilling the commitments given in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper which, in my view, they manifestly fail to do.
I have read the paper placed in the Table Office yesterday. Among other things, it states:
The White Paper … indicated that the Scottish Parliament will be able to require the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence from bodies
which have devolved interests, but have United Kingdom or Great Britain remits at present. However, in the Bill, that particular power will relate only to devolved matters.
The paper goes on to state:
The commitments given in the White Paper in respect of such statutory bodies are given effect to through clauses 83 to 85 of the Bill.
As I said, that is manifestly not the case.
Of necessity, I am going to have to repeat some of the sentiments expressed in the debate on amendments to clause 23. In particular, I want to cite once again paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper because it is important to remind hon. Members of what was originally promised. Paragraph 2.11 states:
In certain reserved areas"—
I stress the word "reserved"—
the activities of other UK/GB bodies which are accountable to the UK Parliament will continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland, and therefore likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament. The Government propose that the Scottish Parliament should be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence before its committees from bodies operating in reserved areas in relation to their activities in or affecting Scotland.
I emphasise the fact that the paragraph deals with reserved areas.
The definition of bodies given in paragraph 2.11 was that they would
continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland".


The paragraph then gives some examples of such bodies. I shall not list them all—I have done that before—but, suffice to say, they include, inter alia, the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. Between the White Paper being published and the Bill being published, that has all disappeared.
The promises made in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper are not allowed for in clause 23; nor are they in clause 83. Not a single example given in the White Paper of cross-border public bodies has found its way into any of the guidance notes, the list of what the Government regarded as cross-border public bodies when the legislation was published. As far as I can see, not a single one of those bodies appears in the list appended to yesterday's note that was placed in the Table Office.
I have asked before and ask again now, as I have not yet received a satisfactory answer, where, precisely, is the commitment given in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper? Where is it implemented in the Bill? Why have the Government turned their back on their promise?
The Government have changed the whole definition without a single word of explanation and we are left with an emasculation of that commitment. Cross-border public bodies, as newly defined, must include among their functions those relating to devolved matters. That neatly excludes from the slightest accountability not just the entire list in the White Paper, but many other bodies as well, even the Scottish Law Commission; that must rank up there in the top 10 list of idiocies in the Bill.
Amendment No. 256—and amendment No. 93, which stands in the name of many Labour Members—would restore to the legislation the definition clearly envisaged in the White Paper, if not the whole of the original intent. The amendments would bring back into the definition the list in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper, which includes the BBC and the ITC. In that way, we can be absolutely certain that we shall at least have reports laid before us, even if we are to be denied the ability to require the submission of evidence. We shall have to make do with "inviting" and hope that, in the case of some of the organisations, it does not mean inviting until the cows come home.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 are clear in their intent and move us on to the Scottish National party's concern about the position of broadcasting when the Parliament is up and running. Notwithstanding any other decision that might be made in respect of clause 83 or schedule 5, the BBC and the ITC would then have some minimum obligations to the Scottish Parliament—I stress the word "obligations".

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Lady referred to the SNP's concern. I am not asking this in a hostile spirit, but what is the basis of that concern? I have not fully understood.

Ms Cunningham: The basis of the concern is the issue of accountability for vast areas of Scottish life that are incredibly important, but about which we shall not even have the ability to require people to come and give evidence.
This set of amendments is, in the main, to do with broadcasting, but it touches on a wider issue on which we have already had a substantive debate under clause 23. Clause 83 is about different groups of bodies.

My contention is that the definition of those bodies clearly changed between the publication of the White Paper and the publication of the legislation.

Mr. Salmond: I have an advantage over my hon. Friend because I have been watching the visage of the Secretary of State during her speech. He seems to be puzzled by my hon. Friend's words. I am tempted to believe that this may be due to confusion on the part of the Scottish Office; perhaps it did not mean to miss out the list. Perhaps my hon. Friend will help the Secretary of State and point out to him, once again, how things have changed from the White Paper to the Bill.

Ms Cunningham: I simply refer the Secretary of State back to paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper which states that the bodies covered are bodies that deal with reserved areas but which
will continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland".
The long list of bodies appended to that paragraph includes, in every case, bodies whose interests and concerns are in purely reserved areas. None of that appears anywhere in the legislation. What was clearly envisaged was that, although the bodies do not cover devolved areas, there would be an element of accountability to the Scottish Parliament for their functions within Scotland. Effectively, that has disappeared. The Secretary of State still appears to be puzzled, but, perhaps when the debate is finished, he should have a careful look at the difference between the White Paper and the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 all relate to exceptions from the reservations contained within schedule 5. In their entirety, they would provide a measure of devolution of broadcasting which was a surprising omission from the White Paper and the legislation. It was surprising, because it is clear from all I have read that many people, including broadcasters, simply assumed that that would be included and were mightily surprised when it was not. Supporters of the call to devolve broadcasting to Scotland include a former BBC controller, Pat Chalmers, Ruth Wishart, who I believe is a close friend of the Secretary of State, and the broadcaster Colin Bell. They are all supporters of the pressure group, Voice for Scotland. I chose them particularly because I suspect that they cover a range of political opinion, but are united on this one issue.

Mr. Wallace: There does not seem to be a Tory.

Ms Cunningham: Finding a Tory in Scotland these days can be difficult.
All those people recognise that we are debating a scheme in which responsibility for the arts, education and Gaelic are all devolved, while responsibility for broadcasting is not. That means that all aspects of cultural life are covered, except broadcasting. There will be a separate Scottish Arts Council, but no body responsible for broadcasting.
5.45 pm
An article written by Ruth Wishart, which appeared in The Herald on 2 March, makes that cogent point. She points out that there is a
natural logic in broadcasting being part of the devolutionary package.


Ruth Wishart uses the Scottish Arts Council as an example of what arguments can be put forward and how pointless they can be. She says that the arguments being used against broadcasting now are the same as those used against the Scottish Arts Council ceasing to be involved with the Arts Council of Great Britain. She says that it would be almost unthinkable to imagine a situation where the Scottish Arts Council was not in the position that it is now, especially given the advent of the Scottish Parliament. She says that broadcasting is in the same boat.
I am grateful to Ruth Wishart for pointing out another interesting example which she says—I agree with her—is an indication of what can be the big difference between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She says that consideration of any two newspapers produced in London and Scotland on the same day would show that the editorial priorities are obviously different. She says that if the same test is applied to television and radio, in many ways, Scotland is short-changed. Her view on that is fair and is held by a number of people.
Broadcasting is a key part not just of cultural life, but of the political process. Those of us who are politically active in Scotland—that is the Labour party, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—already know that, in many respects, the political debate is quite different from the debate in the rest of the United Kingdom. The advent of the Scottish Parliament will make that difference even sharper. At least one Scottish journalist—Simon Frith writing in The Scotsman on 28 November 1997—questions whether, if we continue with the present arrangements, broadcasters will be able to play their role properly in that debate. There will only need to be another "Panorama" debacle for the issue to be at the forefront of the Scottish Parliament's concern. It will be nonsensical if the decision-making process is left to the London-based establishment after the Scottish Parliament is up and running.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Am I to understand that the hon. Lady wants a devolved Scottish BBC? Will she explain how that would work? Would there be a separate royal charter for Scotland because the BBC is rather different from a statutory body? How would it be managed? On a boring, practical point, can she say a little about the financial arrangements? What would be the impact of the change on the financial arrangements?

Ms Cunningham: If the Secretary of State cares to look, he will see that one of our amendments deals with the issue of licence fee income and the repatriation to Scotland of that portion which is raised in Scotland, which is one way in which to deal with the matter. As for his other point, as I understand it, it is perfectly possible within the context of the current charter to devolve and it would be interesting if that debate were to take place. If there has to be a separate charter, let there be a separate charter, but that is something with which we can deal in the fulness of time.

Mr. Dewar: That is a very interesting point. The hon. Lady says a separate charter is not needed, because we can devolve broadcasting in Scotland within the BBC charter. I think that she is quite right. It follows that the matter has nothing to do with legislative devolution and a lot to do with persuading the BBC that there should be devolution within that body and likewise persuading other bodies of a similar nature. This issue is not about legislative regulation and the

words in schedule 5, but about the spirit in which the BBC and other bodies approach the challenge of devolution and the consequences of that for the United Kingdom.

Ms Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman may be correct. Perhaps those bodies will not need persuading and will do it off their own bat—if they did, that would be excellent. However, there is to be a review of the BBC's funding base in 2001 and a charter renewal in 2003 and, although the Scottish Parliament will be well into its deliberations by then, it will have no official role to play in those events—not a single word said in the Scottish Parliament will have any direct effect on either of those deliberations. No doubt, the Scottish Parliament will debate those matters and, no doubt, various persons from the BBC within and—I hope—outwith Scotland will respond positively to invitations to give evidence; but the bottom line is that the Parliament will not have any official input to any part of that debate.
I gather that there was a conference on Friday last week which was addressed by the Secretary of State, among others. It was referred to in the article by Ruth Wishart that I have already mentioned and in an article by Magnus Linklater, writing in Scotland on Sunday this Sunday past. Both writers picked up on the Secretary of State's comment that he was not saying that devolved broadcasting would mean kailyard programming. However, by making that statement, the right hon. Gentleman was the one to throw it into the pot and, having raised the possibility, however negatively, it becomes like the elephant in the courtroom—impossible to ignore. Such a view displays an astonishing degree of self-loathing, especially given some of the programming to which we are already subjected daily. I am happy to note that, according to Magnus Linklater, it was not the view of a majority of the conference that anything like that would happen if broadcasting were devolved.

Mr. Salmond: I am certain that it is not the view of the Secretary of State that devolved broadcasting would be kailyard broadcasting, but I seem to remember a speech by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, at the Edinburgh festival last year, in which he forcefully advanced that argument. Although I do not recall his using that exact phrase, he argued that broadcasting would somehow be diminished if it were devolved.

Ms Cunningham: As I understand it, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has in the past made similar comments, which have generated some criticism. That is the not the view held by the majority of the broadcasters of Scotland. They are confident that they would cope well if there were devolved broadcasting in Scotland. Given that confidence and the new cultural and political imperatives brought by the new Scottish Parliament, it is puzzling that in no circumstances is the devolution of broadcasting to be countenanced.
Rapid changes are taking place in broadcasting; in particular, there is the imminent arrival of digital television. Those changes have already provoked major adjustments to the ownership and control of the Scottish media—a matter in which the Scottish Parliament will have no real say in future. In the amendments, we are trying to look at the matter in the spirit of devolution, which is difficult for those of us who want more than that, but it is what we are trying to do. The truth is that, ultimately, the framework for broadcasting is set by


politicians. We desire at least to create a framework for Scotland for what will happen and not only for what cannot happen.
We propose that there should be exceptions to the reservation in schedule 5 so that scheduling and finance, in so far as they relate to services in Scotland—for example, responsibility for BBC Scotland and its services within Scotland—are devolved to a broadcasting council for Scotland, whereas the BBC generally remains responsible for UK services. Equally, the Scottish Parliament would have powers over a Scottish ITC equivalent to the powers currently exercised by the Westminster Parliament over the ITC.
It would have been easier by far make a straightforward exception to the reservation of broadcasting as a whole, but I do not for a single minute pretend that every part of the Bill is necessarily straightforward. Amendments Nos. 98 to 100 make it clear that we are trying to confine the issue to those functions that relate particularly to Scotland and will not encroach on wider UK powers. Amendment No. 98, which deals with the appointment of a national governor, is another amendment which would restore the position to that stated in the White Paper. Amendment No. 101 is clear: it deals with the licence fee income raised in Scotland and, as I have already referred to it, I shall not spend any more time on it. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I ask hon. Members to consider the reality of the situation that will face us and to accept that the logic of devolution of broadcasting cannot be argued against.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 93, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. When I tabled the amendment, I was thinking not about the BBC, but about the relationship between the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Scottish Parliament. The simplest way in which to bring the EOC's activities in Scotland under the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament would be to include the EOC on the list of cross-border public bodies; however, it has not been included on that list. Clause 83, which relates to cross-border public bodies, states that such a body is one that has
functions exercisable in or as regards Scotland which do not relate to reserved matters.
However, all aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are reserved, so the EOC does not fall within the definition as currently set out on the face of the Bill. If the words,
which do not relate to reserved matters
were deleted, the EOC could legitimately fall within that category.
If the EOC is not deemed to be a cross-border public body, the Scottish Parliament will have no power in relation to it. Clause 23 states that the Scottish Parliament
may require any person … to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence
relating to devolved matters. However, it continues:
That power is not exercisable in relation to … a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate only to reserved matters".
In addition, clause 107, when read alongside clause 106, makes it clear that the EOC will not be required to lay its annual report before the Scottish Parliament. All that

ought to be cleared up, because we must make it clear what we shall do regarding the EOC in respect of all the matters that are devolved, such as housing, education and careers, to name but a few.
In addition to concerns about the EOC, I feel a particular concern about disability discrimination. Enable has pointed out that the Government have appointed a task force to make recommendations for a UK-wide disability rights commission to enforce disabled people's rights under the legislation. The Bill as drafted would appear to prevent the Scottish Parliament from having any powers in relation to that prospective commission, yet many of the Scottish Parliament's activities—social work, education, housing, health, and so on—will be important to disabled people. Those are my reasons for tabling the amendment and I hope to hear a constructive reply from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Godman: I have a couple of questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State relating to what the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said. I do not sympathise greatly with what she said, but several concerns about broadcasting in Scotland have been voiced to me. I hope that the Parliament and the broadcasting authorities can quickly establish a modus vivendi that enables them both to deal with such concerns.
Mr. Jack Gerson, the thriller writer who has written a number radio scripts, has spoken to me about his worries about the BBC and STV following the setting up of the Edinburgh Parliament. He told me recently that the drama departments of Scottish Television and the BBC were showing less interest in Scottish writers and Scottish drama. I hope that that will not be the case when there is a Scottish Parliament.
6 pm
Have there been any discussions—albeit we are at an early stage—about a dedicated channel for the Parliament? That could easily be achieved. Such a channel would be a boon for those in the highlands and islands and others who live a long way from Edinburgh. I hope that all the broadcasting authorities will have ready access to the Parliament. A modus vivendi must be established as early as possible to deal with some of the concerns that have been voiced about the growing remoteness of the broadcasting authorities from drama and documentaries in Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: May I say how pleasant it is to see you in the Chair, Mr. Winterton, for this important debate? I should like to make some points on cross-border public bodies before moving on to some of the issues of broadcasting that have been raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised some important points about equal opportunities. Looking at the provisional selection of amendments by the Chairman of Ways and Means, we should have plenty of opportunity to go back to that issue in more detail later. I apologise to the hon. Lady if I do not deal with it in this speech.
The Government have made efforts to enable some cross-border public bodies that also deal with reserved matters to have responsibilities for non-reserved matters. However, there is no proposal to exempt the BBC and STV from the reservation. I echo what the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said, because there has been


an expectation that senior representatives of the BBC will be brought before the Scottish Parliament. If possible, that should not be a request, because I suspect that they would be able to spot the difference between a request and a requirement if they wanted to wriggle out of it.
The Scottish Law Commission is in the list in the draft order that has been placed in the Library. Will the chairman and members of that commission be appointed jointly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, or will it be a matter for the Scottish Parliament? I accept that there will be occasions when the Scottish Law Commission may be asked to produce a joint report with the Law Commission for England and Wales or to advise on rules that relate to reserved matters, but there was an expectation that appointments to it would fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
I understand that the social security commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of the Lord Advocate. What will the position be in that case? Will the Scottish Court Service still have responsibility for making provision for the administrative arrangements of the social security commissioners, even though social security will not be a devolved matter? Some clarification would be welcome.

Mr. Dewar: Really?

Mr. Wallace: The Committee would welcome clarification. The Secretary of State laughs, but I am sure that he agrees that it is better that the issue should be clarified now than at some time after 2000. We do not want a stushie between the Scottish Court Service and Westminster on who will pick up the tab.
There was some disappointment about the fact that schedule 5 has a blanket reservation on broadcasting. I am not betraying any confidences on how the Scottish Constitutional Convention reached its agreement on broadcasting. That was one of the last matters to be agreed. Hon. Members who were members of the convention may remember that, at one of the later meetings, it was agreed that all matters that fell within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be devolved. That was fine, until someone reported at the next meeting that the Secretary of State had no responsibilities for broadcasting—hence the blanket reservation.
With more consideration, more flexibility could have been shown on some issues. Some clarification of the position on Gaelic broadcasting would be helpful. Our amendment No. 413 would make an exemption from reservation with regard to
The promotion and funding of Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland.
In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee suggested that
the Scottish Parliament would control the funding of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee".
I would welcome clarification on whether that will be the case. The reservation covers
The subject-matters of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and the Broadcasting Act 1996.

The Gaelic Television Committee, which subsequently became the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee, has its statutory basis in those Acts. Section 183(1) of the 1990 Act says that the Secretary of State
shall, for each subsequent financial year,"—
from 1992–93 onwards—
pay to the Commission such amount as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be appropriate for the purposes of this section.
Schedule 19 to that Act says that
the Committee shall prepare a general report of their proceedings during that year and transmit it to the Commission.
It further says:
The Commission shall send a copy of each annual report received by them in accordance with his paragraph to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies of it before each House of Parliament.
It would be odd if something that is so much a part of Scottish culture were removed from the remit of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that there will be some acknowledgement of the role of Gaelic broadcasting and the fact that it would be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to have a role. The budget in 1991–92 was £9.5 million, whereas it is £8.5 million in 1998–99. If there were no Scottish parliamentary input into that, there might be a fear that the sum would decrease further.
More generally, we are talking of the arts, sport, heritage, tourism and film as devolved matters, while broadcasting is not. I am not in favour of a separate Scottish broadcasting corporation; I do not think that it would make sense and I do not think that Scotland's viewing population wants it. We should look to areas in which there may be scope for devolved powers, such as in local television. The advance of technology in telecommunications allows greater provision of local television. Such provision would not interfere with wavebands or national broadcasting organisations.
The Institute of Local Television has said:
By applying the principle of subsidiarity to the allocation of broadcast frequency channels and cable channels a coherent view can be adopted by the Scottish Parliament for the introduction of digital broadcasting services in the best interests of Scotland, to enhance local economic and cultural diversities".
There could be such provision at a Scottish level.
I would like to think that someone could continually press Channel 5 to ensure that its coverage reaches the many parts of Scotland which are without coverage at the moment, particularly as it is broadcasting Scotland's away games in the qualifying stages of the European nations championship. There is considerable resentment in many parts of Scotland, including my constituency, about not being able to receive Channel 5. It would be very welcome if the Parliament could do something to encourage Channel 5 to extend its coverage.
My hon. Friends and I propose that the appointment of the Scottish governor of the BBC and the Scottish member of the ITC should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament should also at least have the discretion to require the BBC and the ITC to lay their annual reports before it, as they have to before the Westminster Parliament. That small matter might seem narrow procedurally, but it would establish some chain of accountability between those important broadcasting organisations and the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to be pedantic, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Scottish


Parliament should appoint the governor of the BBC, does he mean the Scottish Executive or the Parliament as a whole?

Mr. Wallace: Our amendment says that the appointment of a national governor for Scotland of the BBC and of the Scottish member of the ITC should be an exception from reservation. It would be a matter of whether Parliament approved or the Scottish Executive nominated. As the Bill stands, nothing can be done. We are trying to put the matter within the realms of the responsibility of the Parliament and the Scottish Executive, which is answerable to the Parliament. The amendment's intent is to improve accountability.
From experience of meeting Scottish broadcasters, I know that there is a great deal of enthusiasm for the approaching Scottish Parliament. They see opportunities, not least in the broadcasting of the Parliament. My expectation and hope is that the effects of having a Parliament again in Scotland will go far beyond politics to stimulate arts, culture and broadcasting in Scotland. I think that the Secretary of State said that when he intervened on the hon. Member for Perth. As much of the debate is about devolution in the BBC as it is about devolution in the United Kingdom. Anything that can be done to stimulate, encourage or prod London and the BBC to go down the devolutionary road would be very welcome.
Some of us remember the sheer insensitivity of those in London when they sought to broadcast a full "Panorama" interview with the Prime Minister only a few days before Scottish local elections. The matter was not only about the fact that the BBC did that, but that it did not see anything wrong in doing so and could not understand why people in Scotland might think that such a move upset the normal rules and balance of broadcasting before an election.
Five years ago, without consultation, the BBC removed resources from Scotland and centralised them in London, which caused quite a row at the time. Only last month, the Financial Times reported that John Birt is to put before governors a proposal
to place large parts of its resources directorate—which includes all studios and technicians—into a wholly owned commercial subsidiary.
BBC staff unions … protested at an earlier version of the plan on the grounds that it would encourage privatisation of the BBC resources directorate".
The concern is that such a resource will be even further removed from any accountability to the Scottish Parliament. If the move were to lead to privatisation, there would be no separate Scottish privatisation. We have seen how separately privatised Scottish utility companies have been able to go from strength to strength, whereas some other privatisations in which no separate Scottish company was established have meant that Scotland has often had to bear the brunt of rationalisation, when decision making, senior technicians and senior management have been moved out of Scotland.
Looking further forward, there is an argument for ensuring greater appreciation in the BBC of the need to decentralise. That could be helped along the way by making the appointments described in the amendment the

responsibility of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Executive and by, very simply, asking the BBC and the ITC to lay their annual reports before the Parliament. I ask the Secretary of State to consider that; it does not ask very much. Doing that might ring bells in London that things have changed and that people must be sensitive to a Scottish dimension. I hope that broadcasters and particularly the BBC rise to the challenge of devolution. They have a vested interest in its success. I very much hope that this debate and proper, fair consideration of the amendments will stimulate the BBC, particularly in London, to wake up to what is happening north of the border.

Mr. Michael Connarty: It is a special delight to see you, Mr. Winterton, in the Chair. I know that you are the chairman of the United Kingdom-wide all-party media group and will therefore no doubt pay particular attention to some of this debate.
The metaphor "elephants in the courtroom" is certainly a new one on me—but then lawyers, who are so abundant in this place, probably recognise it. I thought of other little phrases that trip off the tongue, such as "bull in a china shop" and "snake in the grass"—the Scottish National party involvement in the debate made that jump to mind.
The debate is not about devolution. For those who have tabled the amendments, it never has been. SNP Members have softened their tone tonight, but they have not done so in public debates—nor have they in trying to give influence to the group named by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham), A Voice for Scotland, which is quite clearly a voice for separate media in Scotland, separate broadcasting in Scotland and separate regulation and control of media and broadcasting in Scotland. That is the quite clear message that SNP Members put out in debates that I have had with them in public, on television and in private discussions. This debate is about separation of broadcasting and control of that separate broadcasting.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Connarty: Not at this particular moment. I will let the hon. Lady in later.

Ms Cunningham: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is not giving way. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for resuming her seat.

Mr. Connarty: So am I. I will allow her in later, so she can hold her wheesht at this moment.
I heard mention of what is in fact the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It may have been the Department of National Heritage when, as the hon. Member for Perth thought, it made some unhelpful comments. Although I am a parliamentary private secretary for that Department, I am speaking not with a brief from it but as a Back Bencher and a Scot.
I am not precious about either of the Parliaments. It is quite clear that the people who are leading the debate are precious about a separate Parliament in Scotland and


therefore do not necessarily hold in any value the contribution of this Parliament to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Perth. Broadcasting is very much based on regulation on a European basis and will move quickly in the satellite and digital era into a world debate. That is the context in which we should be thinking—not about shrinking the debate into a Scottish debate as if, somehow, broadcasting can be controlled by some sort of border network of electronics that would prevent anything coming from anywhere else. I see the hon. Member for Perth pulling a face, but the debate is in that context for many people. They think that they can have control over the BBC in Scotland and the other media, such as the Scottish Media Group, and somehow make them bring out programmes that they find culturally and politically acceptable. That is the undercurrent of the debate and the political drive for the debate for many of the people in the Scottish National party.
It is wrong of those people to have that as an aspiration or to think that anyone in the media shares it. A few names were mentioned. One that is normally to the fore is that of George Kerevan, who speaks for that party. I believe that he is one of its vice-chairs, with responsibility for such matters. He makes it clear that the debate is all about having more Scottish programmes and developing the Scottish culture, as if that could not be done by the broadcasting media at the moment. In fact, I think that it is being done very well.
The hon. Lady made a point about Scottish newspapers, saying that their editions in Scotland are somehow acceptable, whereas other broadcast media programmes are not acceptable. I think that that was a demonstration of "Panorama paranoia", because one particular programme heated up the debate slightly in the pre-election days and was then seen as a touchstone for what could or could not be done.
The other point that the hon. Lady made, which I thought was particularly inept, was the concept that the BBC funding review in 2001 would be better debated in a Scottish Parliament in which Scottish Members of Parliament would contribute as the people taking the lead and making the controlling decisions.
That reminded me why it is important to send United Kingdom parliamentarians elected in Scotland down here to talk, debate and contribute on that and other matters at a UK level. If the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had been in the Chamber he might have agreed about that, although he does not want them to talk about matters to do with English local authorities, for example. The broadcasting point would be debated at the right level, in a UK-wide framework in relation to European regulation and European involvement in the control, regulation and development of the media—a context in which, as I am sure that you, Mr. Winterton, know, it will probably be debated more than ever.
A comment that I found rather weak was the idea that broadcasters "could cope well" with devolved broadcasting. What a strange phrase for someone who aspires to have an independent Scotland—that under devolved broadcasting it could "cope well".
Everyone in the media to whom I have spoken, and everyone who has responded in the discussions that I have been involved in, has been talking about a blossoming of broadcasting in Scotland at this moment under the present regulation. They have been saying, and I agree with them,

that with a devolved Parliament the amount of interest in and impetus for the Scottish culture will be such an enormous fillip to their efforts that broadcasting will blossom.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the leader of the Scottish Liberals, was saying how digital and local production would, we hope, blossom. Everyone I talked to saw that as being possible. Many parts of Scotland with digital channels would be able to broadcast and develop their own cultural base.
The Dundonians will come back into their own, and the people from Ayrshire, from the north and the islands—

Mr. McAllion: What do you mean, "Come back?"

Mr. Connarty: I have every confidence—but we shall have to learn how to understand. At first it would be just about as difficult to learn how to understand the Gaelic as to understand a true Dundonian accent. I know that.
Broadcasting in Scotland could blossom in all those respects in local areas. I am very much a supporter of local radio, and in the future, it is to be hoped, local television broadcasting will be added. That can all be done in the present context of UK regulation. The present controllers are not holding that back.
At one of the debates in which the listeners and viewers consumers panel held an open forum in Stirling, I debated with Mr. Kerevan and a representative of the Liberal Democrats—a Mr. Sullivan, I believe—who seemed to be taking a line similar to that of the Scottish nationalists, talking about a separate broadcasting regulation set-up. All the people were there from the media and the present controller of BBC Scotland was supportive of our position rather than that of the people from A Voice for Scotland.
In the early days, when the subject was debated and discussed, it was admitted that that might have been possible. I hear the White Paper quoted again and again to the effect that it might have been possible or even sensible to devolve regulation or some part of regulation. But when we looked at the idea in more depth it was clear that it would have been a narrowing of the base of Scottish broadcasting and therefore inappropriate.
The people from the Scottish Media Group, who now own a cross-media group of both written and broadcast media in Scotland, were also of the opinion that the present regulation situation, the present relationship, which is in the powers the Secretary of State has at this moment, which will be devolved, and the things that will remain as reserved, are the appropriate context in which they wish to develop. They see that as no barrier to making and selling programmes both in Scotland and outside Scotland. Therefore, it is a backward step to try to take any of that over the border and somehow shrink it into a Scottish Parliament context.
On the question of finance, the contributions from the BBC were interesting. The BBC believes that with its spare income—that is, the income that it does not spend on its own Scottish network—it can buy in network programmes, but that if the programmes that it buys in through the BBC network at this moment had to be bought on the market, it could not buy them in with its present income from the licence fee in Scotland.
The BBC would therefore have to reduce the programmes that it offers the people of Scotland if it had to be self-sufficient outwith the BBC network as it stands at the moment, and had a separate charter and licence collection.
Whether people like it or not—personally, I am not a great follower of soaps—in percentage terms there is probably just as much interest in the population of Scotland as there is elsewhere in what goes on in "Coronation Street". My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) is not in the Chamber, but I know that he ensures that all the programmes are taped. He has not missed a part of "Coronation Street" since it started when he was a boy, he tells me. He has it taped so that he can watch it at the weekend.

Mr. Godman: The interest in the soaps is to be found throughout these islands. May I remind my hon. Friend that at the recent Irish election, an independent candidate in County Kerry won election to the Dail on his campaign for greater access to BBC and ITV programmes, especially "Coronation Street".

Mr. Connarty: I understand and sympathise with that. I do not follow the programmes, but I know that most people know where Albert square is.

Mr. Godman: Who is he kidding?

Mr. Connarty: I used to follow—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. the hon. Gentleman is going a bit wide of the amendment. I hope that he will take no more time in responding to that intervention.

Mr. Connarty:: The intervention stands on its own, Mr. Winterton. People want to see the programmes on the network. They do not necessarily want to watch programmes made in Scotland about Scotland. That is not to say that they are resistant to those programmes or do not value the contribution made by the Scottish media and culture to Scotland, but Scotland exists within the UK and within Europe—and it has a big international world view. Scotland sees itself not as a nation that wants to be shrunk but as a nation that wants to be expanded.
Unfortunately, the proposal smacks of trying to reduce broadcasting and the other media in Scotland to something controllable. I think that that is the agenda. There is a spectrum. Accountability has been talked about, and I think that we have that. It lies here in the UK Parliament.
I believe that the controller of one of the broadcasting organisations said that if invitations were issued, not only would his organisation accept, but it would be pushing to be heard by the Committees and Sub-Committees of the Scottish Parliament. That is correct. The organisations want to broadcast what they have to offer.
The spectrum starts with accountability, then moves over to regulation. Regulation is not necessarily being discussed or put forward now, because it does not stand up, but it is the aim of the Scottish National party. The Liberal point of view—having control of who is appointed—still worries me because we would take that out of the context of a UK broadcasting network and take it into a Scottish Parliament.
What happens to the people who are down here who see the remit as a United Kingdom remit and then have to see it given just to the Scottish Parliament? That would

begin to create the very fracture that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon warned us about. That scares me in its political context. It is about generating separation and conflict and about generating English and Scottish nationalism—even in the context of a devolved Parliament. That worries me.
It is a question of control. The amendments are motivated mainly by the wish to control the broadcasting media and to control what it puts out to people. It is an attempt to grab the minds of the people and to use the media to foment in them a sense of separation and nationalism that would benefit only those who follow the separatist view. It is the beginning of a very dangerous move—one which I hope the Secretary of State will resist. I am sure he will do so this evening.

Mr. Jenkin: We have listened to an interesting debate about whether there should be further devolution in broadcasting and other matters than is provided for in the Bill. I shall return to the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
In moving the amendment, the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) referred mainly to clause 83 and to cross-border bodies. Clause 83—one of three that deal with such bodies—provides for cross-border bodies as set out in the draft order the Secretary of State has most helpfully provided for the debate. It includes such august bodies as the British Library Board, a lot of obscure ones and controversial bodies such as the Meat and Livestock Commission and meat hygiene appeals tribunals. Matters arising from those bodies are subject to devolution to the Scottish Parliament, raising questions about the coherence of UK policy. That is an issue we have not yet gone into.
I should say that amendment No. 426 is merely a clarifying amendment to which I shall not refer at any length.
The draft order contains an interesting assurance on behalf of the Government. It states:
The Government envisage however that the Scottish Parliament will want to continue most such arrangements in the light of the advantages of sharing knowledge and expertise on a UK or GB basis and of the greater efficiency in the use of resources.
That expectation seems to be confounded by today's debate. The amendments set out to challenge not just whether the bodies should continue to be administered on a joint UK basis but whether bodies that have interests in reserved powers—notably the BBC—should continue on a UK basis.
The hon. Member for Perth expressed disappointment that paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper has not, in her view, been fulfilled. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is simply making mischief. The operative word in paragraph 2.11 is "invite". At no point does the White Paper raise any expectation that the Scottish Parliament will hold over any body any obligation that has solely to do with reserved powers. That is clear, and I want to put it on the record that we will support the Secretary of State on this matter. In our attempt to create a stable settlement between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, we cannot argue on the basis of fantasy or on the basis of what the hon. Lady would like to have had in the White Paper.
I wish to refer to the substance of the amendments about broadcasting. Many matters of concern to Scottish Members of Parliament will be replicated in the Scottish


Parliament. As I listened to discussions on the degree of devolution within the BBC or the insensitivity of the BBC in London to Scottish issues, I reflected on the fact that here we have, in miniature, the same debate that we are having about the administration and accountability of the UK Government.
The more the Scottish BBC has had delegated to it, the less the BBC in London has been involved with Scottish issues. A consequence of that is that the BBC in London is likely to become less sensitive to Scottish needs. That will drive the demand that the Scottish BBC should be more accountable to the new Scottish Parliament. That seems to be the road down which we are going.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and, to some extent, the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which suggest that the BBC and broadcasting as a whole should, to some extent, be answerable to the Scottish Parliament, are, in view of the shape and intent of the Bill, entirely logical. They are an extrapolation of the Bill that many will regard as only half a Bill. The hon. Member for Perth said that the amendments were tabled in the spirit of the Bill—the spirit of devolution. Her game is obvious: she finished by talking about ownership and control. Those may well become issues of concern to the Scottish Parliament.
It is difficult to imagine how the Westminster Parliament will block its ears to demands from the Scottish Parliament for a say over some of these issues. It will be a cheese-paring operation. The Parliament will begin by wanting a say over the appointment of the governor, then it will want a say over appointments to the Independent Television Commission, but that will not satisfy the frustrations that the hon. Member for Perth and others will continue to express.
The Government have tried to reduce the question of devolution to a simple yes-no question, but the amendments graphically demonstrate that devolution is a matter of degree. The argument about the degree of devolution has started even before the Bill has become an Act. Now that Scotland is to have control over so much of its affairs, why should it not have a greater say on broadcasting?
I have some idea what the Secretary of State will say. I can hear him argue that it would not be right for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to alter legislation governing broadcasting and its regulation. I can hear him say that this is not because of a lack of faith in the Parliament or in Scottish broadcasters, but because the single UK market and the regulatory regime will be difficult to break up without creating inefficiency, which would harm the interests of Scottish viewers and listeners. It is a rational case.
The Secretary of State will warn, no doubt, of additional costs to Scottish broadcasters if, for example, a Scottish regulatory authority were to take a different view from that in England. Producers of television programmes would effectively have to work to two different codes if their programmes were, as is commonly the case, shown in England and Scotland.

Mr. Connarty: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's star gazing, but what do he and his party think?

Mr. Jenkin: We have tabled a probing amendment and we are witnessing the beginnings of a tussle that will not end with the passing of the clause and the Bill.
I expect that the Secretary of State will explain how everything about British broadcasting works very well for Scotland at the moment and that there is plenty of talent. No doubt he will argue that devolution will give a fillip to Scottish broadcasting. He will say that quality production in Scotland is already capable of succeeding in the UK market and that maintaining the common UK market will aid progress, whereas fragmentation would hinder it. That will be the burden of the Government's case.
Does not the Secretary of State think that fragmentation will also hinder progress in policies on fishing or agriculture, for example? The hon. Member for Falkirk, East said that broadcasting was becoming a global business, but that applies to many matters—the environment, for example—that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Why do not the arguments about extra costs and inefficiency apply to all the bodies that are listed in the draft order and to many of the functions that are being devolved?
This debate has shown that the arguments that the Government have deployed to advance the case of devolution will be used by those who want further devolution. Broadcasting, like many other issues, will quickly become a bone of contention for the new Parliament. Stability will be most difficult to achieve.

Mr. McAllion: Earlier, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) warned the Committee—such was his concern about the constitutional implications of the Bill and such was his outrage at the lack of time that had been allocated to debate it—that we were all doomed, constitutionally speaking. I note that his concern and outrage were such that he has now found something far more important to do than to stay in the Chamber to listen to the debates—he has gone away to do something that he regards as far more worthy of his precious time. We can judge his earlier speech by his absence now—it is symptomatic of what is wrong with the Tory party and why it is not represented in Scotland.
I speak in support of amendment No. 93, which I tabled with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and others. Like her, I received a letter from Enable, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, supporting the amendment. It said that the Scottish Parliament must have powers and responsibilities in relation to cross-border bodies such as the Equal Opportunities Commission and the disability rights commission that is to be set up. It pointed out that it would be anomalous that the Scottish Parliament should have responsibilities for social work, housing, education and health, which directly affect people with disabilities, but no formal power over the Equal Opportunities Commission or the disability rights commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill will be delighted to know that I also received a letter from the Dundee Trades Union Council supporting the amendments that she tabled on equal opportunities and on gender equality. I hope that she will remember that Dundee expects her to argue strongly for gender equality and that she will press the amendments to a Division if necessary. I note that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seems to have become alarmed at the prospect of Dundee once again raising its ugly head.
There is no uniformity of views within or across parties on the role of broadcasting and its relationship to the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for North Essex


(Mr. Jenkin) accused the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) of fantasising about the White Paper. I hope that the hon. Lady's life is more exciting than that and that she does not have to fantasise about White Papers on constitutional change. It was an unfair barb.

Mr. Godman: She is a lawyer.

Mr. McAllion: Perhaps lawyers do fantasise about these things, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also a lawyer, and I am sure that he would refute such a suggestion.
My recollection of the White Paper is that it recognises that cross-border bodies such as the BBC and the Independent Television Commission will continue to be significant to the economic and social life of Scotland, and so will be likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will agree that broadcasting will be a matter of direct interest to those who are elected to the Scottish Parliament—it would be nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Clause 83 will provide the Scottish Parliament with a number of limited powers in relation to cross-border bodies. For example, bodies that are required to lay reports before the UK Parliament will also be required to lay them before the Scottish Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make it clear whether that requirement will be laid on the BBC and ITC? Similarly, there will be consultation about Scottish appointments to cross-border bodies, but will the BBC and ITC be required to consult the Scottish Parliament about such appointments?
6.45 pm
The Scottish Parliament will not have the power to require people to give evidence or submit documents, which I believe is a grave weakness. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am a member, recently required—it did not invite—the Scottish Arts Council to give evidence to it. Such was the reception that the council received at the meeting that I am sure that some bodies would rather not appear before a Select Committee of the Scottish Parliament—if they had the choice—because of the grilling that they might be subjected to. The fact that the Scottish Parliament will not have much greater powers over broadcasting is, I believe, a serious weakness.
Some of my hon. Friends have spoken of kailyard broadcasting, which I think is an insult. I tell them that the Scottish Parliament is being treated like a kailyard institution, as it will have no rights to summon representatives from one of the most important industries in Scotland—it will not be able to question the people who are responsible for broadcasting on the expenditure of Scottish taxpayers' and licence holders' money. That will be an anomaly, and it should not be allowed to happen.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who is no longer present, recollected that the Scottish Constitutional Convention executive had agreed that the powers of a Scottish Parliament should be exactly the same as those of the Secretary of State for Scotland—the convention realised only subsequently that those powers did not include broadcasting.
My recollection is that, in appendix 1 of the convention's final document—I think it was called "Scotland's Right, Scotland's Parliament"—broadcasting is clearly listed as one of the Parliament's functions. That was agreed by the Labour party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the women's organisations and the Churches—by everyone who took part in the convention's debates. We need an explanation of why what we agreed in the convention will not be implemented by the Bill.
I was recently sent the book, "Devolution and the Scotland Parliament"—I assume that other hon. Members were also sent it—written by two respected constitutional lawyers, C. M. G. Himsworth, who is a solicitor and reader in law at Edinburgh university, and C. R. Munro, who is professor of constitutional law at Edinburgh university. Hon. Members who are not lawyers or constitutional experts should take their views seriously—I accept that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a lawyer and a constitutional expert, but he is perhaps not as learned as these Edinburgh university academics. [Interruption.] Well, perhaps he is as learned; I do not know.
The authors argue that it is not self-evident that the laws of Scotland and England should not differ on broadcasting. They do not believe that it is essential to have a unitary broadcasting authority vested in the United Kingdom Parliament. They say that there is nothing wrong with the idea that the Scottish Parliament could enact legislation on broadcasting that is different from the legislation that applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. Their views should not be as cavalierly cast aside as some hon. Members have suggested.
People who do not want the Scottish Parliament to have power over broadcasting argue, for example, that there should not be double accountability—that the BBC and the ITC cannot be accountable to both the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. They argue that such double accountability would lead to confusion and would be unfair to the BBC and ITC.
On the other side of that coin, is it right that the Scottish Parliament should have no accountability whatever for broadcasting in Scotland? That cannot be a serious argument. We all recognise that, once the powers have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the role of the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office in the United Kingdom Parliament will, by necessity, be diminished.
The Secretary of State's influence over broadcasting policy and in the Cabinet generally will be equally diminished at Westminster, so it is essential that the Scottish Parliament has a role, to ensure that the Scottish arm of broadcasting is subject to the same accountability as under the present unitary system. We will not have a unitary system when the Scottish Parliament is up and running: we will have two Parliaments running in tandem, and it is important that they should both be able to hold to account those who are responsible for broadcasting.

Mr. Connarty: My hon. Friend knows that I respect his views on these matters, but it seems to me that he is suggesting that he agrees with those who argue that Members of this Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies should be given less weight, and that their responsibility, powers and respect in Westminster should be diminished. I am extremely worried by that theory.


If responsibility for broadcasting stays here, with United Kingdom Members of Parliament elected for Scottish constituencies, surely they should have the same weight as they have now.

Mr. McAllion: They cannot have. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the budget of the Scottish Office and for all the powers that it exercises, but, after devolution, he will lose that responsibility, which will transfer to the Scottish Parliament. By definition, he will carry less weight in the Cabinet. Indeed, it has been argued that there could be only one constitutional spokesman for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland after the devolved bodies are set up.
It is natural in those circumstances that the Scottish Parliament should be given powers over broadcasting. Otherwise, a large industry in Scotland would not be subject to proper democratic scrutiny. Those of us who worked in the Scottish Constitutional Convention intended the Scottish Parliament to be responsible for that scrutiny. We cannot say in 1996 that it is essential that broadcasting be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and then say in 1998 that we did not really mean it. We should honour the commitment that we gave.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised the prospect of the Scottish Parliament trying to control broadcasters in Scotland. That is not what anyone is calling for. We want to replicate the arm's-length relationship with broadcasters that the United Kingdom Parliament has. No one suggests that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport controls the BBC, the ITC or The Sun. In fact, some might argue that The Sun controls the Department. It is a false argument to suggest that because the Scottish Parliament wants some powers over broadcasting, it wants to control it completely. It wants to subject it to democratic scrutiny, and that is a legitimate aspiration.
I take offence when people say that there is a danger of parochialism if broadcasting is overseen by people elected in Scotland by Scottish voters. They suggest that it will be kailyard broadcasting; that the Scots cannot be trusted to look after these weighty affairs; and that a Scottish "Coronation Street" or "EastEnders" would be of poor quality and no one would want to see it.
The Scots are every bit as capable of holding broadcasting to account as anyone in this Parliament. Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies will be in no way better than Members of the Scottish Parliament representing the same constituencies.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am a bit concerned about my hon. Friend's line of thought. I am not aware of anyone—among Labour Members, at least—making such a claim. In fact, it would be absurd. BBC Scotland produces excellent programmes, some of which have achieved worldwide renown.

Mr. McAllion: I agree 100 per cent. that my hon. Friend would never make such an assertion, but unfortunately there are some who would argue in those terms. It strikes me that there is a metropolitan tendency that, for some people, is unavoidable in the Westminster Parliament. They think that if it is not done in the London region it cannot be good enough and that the regions outside London are, by definition, less sophisticated. That is insulting and should be resisted by every Member of Parliament.
The idea of devolution is that government can be carried on in every corner of this island just as effectively as it can be carried on here in London. Indeed, the whole argument behind devolution in the first place is that government can be conducted more effectively in that way.
British broadcasting is already over-centralised. I recently came across the statistic that only 3 per cent. of what is carried by the BBC network is from Scotland, although Scotland has 17 per cent. of the network's audience. That is not good enough: BBC Scotland is doing well, but not well enough, and more Scottish programmes should be on the BBC network, so that they can be watched throughout the United Kingdom. It would help towards that end if the Scottish Parliament had powers over broadcasting.
My hon. Friend the Secretary of State is screwing up his face. I do not know what that means. Perhaps he wants me to shut up and sit down.

Mr. Hawkins: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The influence of Scotland on national broadcasting goes well beyond programmes that are commissioned and made in Scotland. When James Naughtie is on an opinion-forming political programme, the Scots have a real influence over national British politics.

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the only way in which Scots can influence national politics is to leave Scotland, that is a very strange argument. I am glad to hear that he is following my argument closely. He must be the only Member who is.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: James Naughtie is a former constituent of mine, having resided in Keith for a considerable time.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that reporting what happens in the Scottish Parliament is important not only within Scotland and that we must look outwards and ensure that the broadcasting facilities take the messages that come from that Parliament into the international community? Those messages should not necessarily have to be sieved through the procedures of London state broadcasting.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. One of the big issues will be the way in which the broadcasting authorities deal with the Scottish Parliament. The United Kingdom Parliament is ultimately responsible for the BBC and the Independent Television Commission, and can exercise influence over those who decide how parliamentary business is broadcast.
As I understand it, it is suggested not only that the Scottish Parliament should have no influence over how it should be broadcast but that this Parliament should decide what the coverage should be. That would be a matter of great concern for me, because I believe that the Scottish Parliament should be treated equally.
I hope that the BBC and ITV in Scotland, and the other Scottish media, will treat the Scottish Parliament with the same respect and interest that are accorded to this Parliament. Again and again, we come back in these debates to the old story that Westminster wants to send the message that the Scottish Parliament is in some sense


inferior and that its proceedings should not be covered to the exclusion of our proceedings here. I do not agree with that.

Mr. Connarty: I wish that my hon. Friend had carried on his logic, so that I could have followed him in the quantum leap that he made, suggesting that if the Scottish Parliament makes broadcasting more accountable to it, we in Scotland will, by some process or other—osmosis, perhaps—end up being able to sell more of our programmes and producing more than 3 per cent. of the BBC network output in Scotland. I am worried by the idea that he believes that politicians have a right to interfere in the process of creativity in broadcasting. He seems to think that giving the Scottish Parliament accountability will make the programmes more acceptable to the network. I do not know how that could happen.

Mr. McAllion: As I mentioned, the Scottish Arts Council appeared before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Some artists from Scotland appeared before the Committee this morning, including Mr. David MacLennan of Wildcat Stage Productions and Mr. John McGrath of Freeway Films. They said that they were delighted that, for the first time in 30 years, elected politicians would become involved in the politics of art and culture in Scotland. They thought that that would give a much higher profile to their arguments and hold an unelected quango to account, because elected politicians could ask the quango members why they had taken certain decisions.
The BBC in Scotland should be subjected to more democratic scrutiny, and that is more likely to be done in a Scottish Parliament than here. This body does not have the mechanisms for holding BBC Scotland to account. The Select Committee is more likely to be concerned about the BBC as a whole and its leadership down here in London than with Scotland. The fact that the network has only a 3 per cent. Scottish output is not a big issue for this Parliament. It would be a major issue for the Scottish Parliament and would lead to much improved argument and debate on the issues and, hopefully, the BBC in Scotland would start to perform much better.
We have already agreed that the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for the arts, heritage, sports, tourism and film. Why can we not agree that it should also have responsibility for broadcasting? The BBC has written to hon. Members—it wrote to me, so I assume it wrote to every other hon. Member—to point out that it invests more in the cultural life of Scotland than the Scottish Arts Council. We are happy for the Arts Council, the arts, theatre, opera and ballet to be subject to the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. Why on earth can we not be happy for broadcasting, which is much bigger, to be subject to its scrutiny? It does not seem sensible.
7 pm
The summary sent to us by BBC Scotland tells us how well it is doing. Across Scotland, it has 10 centres and 1,000 staff. It brings in £157 million in licence fee income, has invested a total of £83 million recently in its programmes and has 670 hours of television programmes specifically for viewers in Scotland and 920 hours for the

United Kingdom radio networks. Why on earth can we not say that the Scottish Parliament has a clear role to hold to account a body that is so important and has such a big impact on life in Scotland and to ask about the way in which it exercises its responsibility?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether we wanted a separate Scottish BBC. No one is arguing for that, although I would certainly not be averse to a devolved Scottish BBC. We are arguing for accountability. Those people who operate and spend the money in Scottish broadcasting should be held to account, and the Scottish Parliament should not be excluded from the role of holding them to account. In fact, it is much better suited to holding such bodies in Scotland to account than the Westminster Parliament. That is not my merely my view, but that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and when it drew up the blueprint for a Scottish Parliament it certainly expected that to happen.
The tabloid argument that people in Scotland are happy to watch "Crossroads", "Coronation Street" or "EastEnders" is a complete red herring. No one suggests that anyone in Scotland should be deprived of any programme on the BBC network. I see some of my hon. Friends are laughing, but one of our hon. Friends argued that earlier.

Mr. Godman: My hon. Friend is kidding.

Mr. McAllion: I do not watch any of those programmes anyway. No one is denying anyone access to the BBC UK network. We are saying that BBC Scotland should be accountable. Clearly, that must be the case.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the insensitivity of the BBC hierarchy in relation to the party political broadcast put out in Scotland immediately before the election. I could cite other examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will confirm that the BBC has taken away resources and manpower from stations in Dundee. Who holds it to account for that? We are merely the two local Members of Parliament. I would rather have a powerful Broadcasting Committee in the Scottish Parliament, which could summon the controller in Scotland and ask questions, such as why this office is being closed or that reporter taken away, or why certain investments were being reduced. That is what should be happening, but it will not happen in this Parliament. It should happen in a Scottish Parliament.
What about listed events? Because of Sky Television and the tendency nowadays to auction to the highest bidder coverage of sporting events, we have had to list a number of major events that cannot be put out to contract or to the highest bidder, including the Scottish cup final. The Scottish Parliament would be much more likely to defend major Scottish events than would the Westminster Parliament. Therefore, I plead with my hon. Friends not to dismiss entirely the idea that the Scottish Parliament should have a major role in monitoring and overseeing broadcasting in Scotland. Throughout the debates in the convention, we always intended that that should be the case, and the Government should not be backing out now.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned listed sporting events, in which I have taken a big interest, along with a number of his hon. Friends. Does he agree that


one thing on which there has been agreement between the previous and the new Governments is the importance of listed events? The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has set up a new panel, which has accepted that there should be listed events. The only issue is which events should be listed. While I agree that national sporting events, both in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, are of vital importance, I suggest that that Cabinet Minister's decision to accept the principle of listed events, which we set up, does not support the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. McAllion: That all depends on the balance of power inside the panel set up to defend the listed events and whether it regards the Scottish cup final, or indeed the Scottish junior cup final, as a priority. The hon. Gentleman is probably grateful for the fact that the England-West Indies Test series is not a listed event and he does not have to watch it, unless he has Sky Television.
This is a serious issue. Specifically Scottish events are far more likely to be defended by a Parliament based in Scotland than by a Parliament down here which is dominated by English Members, and rightly so because of the size of the country. That is a simple point, and I hope that the my hon. Friend the Minister will take it on board.
Broadcasting was intended to be a responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. At some stage, a decision was taken to reverse that intention. I do not know why the decision was taken, what consultation was carried out beforehand or the arguments for it. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make those matters clear when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: First, I reaffirm that the Liberal Democrats fully support the amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), which would ensure that the Scottish Parliament controlled equal opportunities and which will reappear at a later stage. We also support many of the arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), which is not unusual.
What is unusual is that I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) contained a lot of good sense. As other hon. Members and I have often criticised the Conservative contribution to these debates, it seems only fair to say that, although I did not agree with all of it, it was constructive and on the right wave length, if that is the right expression in this debate. I hope that by complimenting the hon. Gentleman on it, I will not ruin his political career.
We support the first of the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party. It is regrettable that Scottish politics is such that because that party has proposed it, some hon. Members—certainly some Labour Members—feel that they have to oppose it. The Scottish nationalists may not have got all the right answers, but we agree that there must be some sort of say for the Scottish Parliament in broadcasting. It is not realistic for the Scottish Parliament to be precluded from having any opportunity to debate and discuss broadcasting and to call people before it for consultation.
The line taken by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) that if the Scottish Parliament had some say in broadcasting it would diminish this Parliament,

is not correct. That is the faulty argument, often put up by the Conservatives, that sovereignty is indivisible. We can cheerfully have two or three different bodies—I am sure that the European Parliament discusses such things—with some input into the control of broadcasting.
The Liberal Democrats certainly do not want political control, censorship and all that sort of thing, but we think that it is reasonable to say that democratically elected Members of the Scottish Parliament could make a contribution on the subject of broadcasting, which impinges on so many other things that that Parliament will control—for example, education, the arts, sport and Gaelic. It would be ridiculous if the Scottish Parliament was promoting some considerable change in education to which broadcasting could contribute, but was not allowed to tell the broadcasters that certain types of programme would be a great help. What if the Parliament wanted to promote the arts? As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, Scottish broadcasting puts in much more money than the Government via the Scottish Arts Council. It would be ridiculous if, for example, the broadcasting people did not give some great festival in Scotland adequate treatment, but the Scottish Parliament could not discuss with them how they could do more.
We have concentrated on ITV and the BBC during the debate, but there have been great developments in local television and radio, and in new technologies, which I do not understand. Other hon. Members must have been asked for their views by television and radio stations that they have never heard of. I have no idea whether anyone watches or listens to their programmes, but such organisations are multiplying, so not allowing the Scottish Parliament to discuss the conduct of the local radio station in Auchtermuchty, if one exists, is ridiculous.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East was worried about political control. We should turn the argument round: all of us worry about the control exercised by media moguls such as Mr. Murdoch, and it is possible that broadcasting in Scotland might be seriously influenced by a tycoon who was thought by most Members of the Scottish Parliament to have had an adverse effect on events in Scotland.
The Scottish Parliament must be able to defend itself against the political tyranny of a media tycoon. Our amendments address that point modestly, and the Government should accept them. We suggest that the Scottish Parliament should discuss the annual reports of the BBC and ITV. Specifically, the Scottish Parliament should have a say on Gaelic broadcasting and the appointment of BBC governors in Scotland.
Our amendments and those tabled by the Scottish National party put down a marker and send a message to the broadcasting centralisers in London. The arts world in particular is over-centralised. I meet London critics who come up to the Edinburgh festival and think that it is great to get out of London for a week or two. Unless an artist appears in London, he does not appear at all so far as they are concerned. Such over-centralisation must be challenged. If the Government refuse to accept the amendments, they will be sending the message, "London rules broadcasting, OK!", which is wrong.
In the previous debate, the people who said that we had not been given enough time to debate earth shattering issues did not push them to a vote. I am a newcomer to


the House, and I found that incomprehensible. I hope that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) will press the amendments to a vote.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I support amendment No. 93, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and deals with the Equal Opportunities Commission. If it is rejected on the ground that it would catch other bodies, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take alternative action to deal with the commission's unique circumstances.
Before the White Paper was published, there was a big debate about the EOC's position. We accept that the commission will be a reserved body, because of its employment remit in particular, but, apart from its law enforcement functions, it works proactively with several organisations in devolved areas. Devolved matters are the key to issues of equality. Therefore, it is vital that the EOC has a locus in relation to the Scottish Parliament, and that objective would be met if the EOC were designated a cross-border body.
Paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper states:
The Scottish Parliament will have the power to require submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence on the activities of such bodies".
Such bodies will be accountable to the Parliament, which is particularly appropriate as we are approaching the second stage of the EOC review, and it is likely that the Scottish office of the EOC will have far greater autonomy. Making the EOC a cross-border body would also help to ensure that equality issues are taken account of by the Scottish Parliament, although other amendments will address that point.
I assume that the EOC is one of the bodies dealt with by paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper, to which the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) referred, and that it is not necessary to include those bodies in the Bill, simply because the Scottish Parliament can only invite them to submit reports.
We will miss an opportunity if we do not recognise the unique status of the EOC. If our amendment is unsuitable, I hope that other action will be taken to achieve its aims.

Mr. Dalyell: As the tail-end Charlie of the debate, I hope that the Committee will forgive me for being a little bewildered as to what all the fuss is about. Wild horses would not stop Members of the Scottish Parliament approaching the broadcasting authorities. It is not in the nature of Members of Parliament to feel so restrained, and I should be astonished if anyone at Queen Margaret drive or anywhere else refused to heed representations.
I understand from the press that the current proposal differs from the original convention agreement. I am curious to know by what alchemy that happened. I look forward with curiosity to hearing the explanation.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are concerned not about whether Mr. John McCormick would accept an invitation to speak to the Scottish Parliament, but about the very different matter of whether Mr. John Birt would accept such an invitation?

Mr. Dalyell: Mr. John Birt is a civil man, and if he were asked in a civil way, I am sure that he would accept.

These matters should remain informal, unless there is another agenda—I acquit the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends of subscribing to it—under which the Parliament would control broadcasting and the media. She shakes her head vigorously. As long as such control is not the agenda, I do not see the problem.

Ms Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this Parliament can summon Mr. John Birt to appear, and that the Scottish Parliament will be unable to do that? I accept that a wonderful measure of good will might see us through, but he has frequently pointed out that invitations might be refused. The Westminster Parliament can require attendance, but the Scottish Parliament will be unable to do anything about a refusal.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to extend the discussion, because we have entered the grey area of concordats. I should not trespass into subjects about which I know little. I should just register the fact that there will be great difficulties over predatory pricing, but that, too, is a grey area.
Clause 83(5)(b) provides that subordinate legislation will detail cross-border public bodies. When will such a statutory instrument be introduced, and what consultation is being carried out on its terms, not only in Scotland, but in England? The Law Society wants that question asked, and I hope that an answer will be forthcoming.

Mr. Dewar: I have listened to the debate with considerable interest, and have been somewhat entertained as well. I do not know about Auchtermuchty local radio, but I feel that I should spring to the defence of Auchtermuchty, which—if I remember rightly—produced The Proclaimers and Jimmy Shand. Probably, in terms of the clapometer of public opinion, it has made a large contribution to Scottish culture. [Interruption.] I recognise that The Proclaimers have many interesting connections. If the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) writes to me, we will consider these matters with all proper care.
I enjoyed the performance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, because he is becoming a tremendous facilitator. I note that, if he thinks that his hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) is not speaking clearly enough, he repeats her question so that it can be explained again. That is an interesting tactic on the part of the leader of the pack, and I enjoy watching it.
Let me make a fundamental point. We are trying to bring about a stable division of responsibilities between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has said that that will turn the Scottish Parliament into a second-class Parliament—an inferior Parliament, which will be patronised. I do not agree. Some responsibilities will remain at Westminster, for what strike us as good reasons; others will go to the Scottish Parliament.
It is perfectly fair for people to argue that the division of responsibilities should be readjusted, but, following a devolutionary settlement, there will always be some matters that are not within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and others that are. That is not a mark of disrespect, or the expression of a lack of trust. It is a question of how we achieve the breakdown in a way that has a strength and an internal logic that will serve our constitution well.
I accept that there is always room for legitimate argument. I am familiar with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who has a long track record—I hope that that does not sound like a sinister threat to her future—of pursuing the issue, and who has a perfectly arguable case. I take the view that one of the essential elements of the split to which I have referred is our wish to create a level playing field in the United Kingdom. That level playing field can be defined in a number of ways.
I do not think that anyone who believes in the devolution settlement would argue that company law in Scotland should be different from company law in England. Few would argue that there should be different labour laws north and south of the border. Obviously, the important financial services sector in Scotland would be enormously disadvantaged if financial services regulation differed north and south of the border. That is common sense. On balance, we have concluded that equal opportunities legislation should be on a British basis.
That does not mean that Scotland does not have an active interest in such matters; after all, we are talking about a regulatory framework. I hope that the real role of the Scottish Parliament will be to ensure that we follow best practice in Scotland, and that, in the many areas of practical politics that the Parliament will control—education, housing, law reform, and so forth—we are mindful of the need to live up to what we are trying to achieve in terms of equal opportunities. In the next few weeks, we are likely to engage in some interesting debates about the practical aspect of that.
The fact that there will not be an immediate transfer of power in relation to the regulatory mechanism does not shut us out of the field of equal opportunities. To assume otherwise is to take too defeatist a view, although I recognise and respect the energy with which the point has been put.

Mrs. Fyfe: We shall debate equal opportunities in general at a later stage, but I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify the role of the Equal Opportunities Commission in relation to the Scottish Parliament and its devolved powers. Would it act as an advisory body if the Parliament wished to proceed with legislation relating to equal opportunities in housing or training, for instance—a subject that was definitely within its remit?

Mr. Dewar: It is slightly puzzling—although I understand why it happens—that, because something has not been devolved, it is sometimes assumed that a Chinese wall has been erected and communication must stop. That is not true. It should not be thought that the EOC will not be interested in what is happening in Scotland, and will not go to Scotland to look and learn, and, perhaps, teach and encourage. Of course that process will continue, as it should. Scottish legislation will have to take account of the framework that the EOC constructed. There will be a continuing dialogue, which I welcome.

Mr. Welsh: May I ask a straightforward question? If the devolved Scottish Parliament wished to take evidence or gain information from the broadcasting media, and the media refused, what could it do, apart from saying, "Pretty please"?

Mr. Dewar: Although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to present such a doomsday scenario, I think that extremely

unlikely. If it did happen, it would create a difficulty that would make the policy completely unproductive. I believe that, thus slighted, the Select Committee in the Scottish Parliament would think that its luck was in: it would probably gain more notice and more leverage. That, however, may be a cynical view.
One point that was important to the hon. Member for Perth was tackled very fairly by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). I am not in a partisan mood tonight, and I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady had to say. Moreover, I listened to the reprise, which resulted from a request by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the hon. Lady restate her position.
I entirely understand that the hon. Lady does not like what is in the White Paper, and she is entitled to argue her case; but I am not being difficult when I say that I fail to comprehend on what basis she argues that we have retreated from what is in the White Paper, or that we have betrayed the spirit of the White Paper. We have translated exactly what is in paragraph 2.11—observing the distinction between that and paragraph 2.10—to the Bill. It may be wrong, but I do not understand how it can be suggested that we are guilty of in-and-out running—that, to put it in colloquial terms, we have ratted. In that regard, I think that I am at one with the vast majority of hon. Members.
In paragraph 2.10, we refer to public bodies that deal with United Kingdom matters but also with devolved areas of responsibility. We make it clear that the Scottish Parliament, in those circumstances, would have the power to require the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence. We go on to make a clear distinction. That will not be the position for the other United Kingdom and Great Britain bodies that will be operating entirely in a reserved area. The Scottish Parliament will be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence from those bodies.
The hon. Lady will say—indeed, I have heard her say it many times—that this is a betrayal, a tragic mistake or a lost opportunity. She can use any phrase she likes, but it is certainly not a retreat from the White Paper. I hope that she will not go around saying, in Scotland and elsewhere—on the basis of evidence that no one else can understand—that there has been a betrayal.

Mr. Dalyell: I am the last person in the world who ought to ask this question, but it was clear that the Scottish Constitutional Convention felt that responsibility for broadcasting should lie with the Scottish Parliament. There has been a change, and I am curious to know why.

Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend's curiosity is famous, and it can be a very dangerous and damaging experience to be exposed to it, so I do not want that to happen to me. The answer to his question is, quite simply, in the logic of the point that I have just been making—that we reached the conclusion that broadcasting was part of the regulatory framework, and that it was best that it should be left on a Westminster basis.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Dewar: I really must make some progress.

Mrs. Ewing: What did you mean by "we"?

Mr. Dewar: May I make a little progress? No doubt the hon. Lady will get in later if she wants to.
It seemed to me that it was best that broadcasting was organised on a Great Britain basis. We are moving into very interesting areas of technological development. I am not sure to what extent satellites and the digital revolution observe the boundary between Scotland and England. In an age when I am told that one of the great improvements to the quality of my life will be that I shall be able to switch on 40 different television channels in my house—I feel exhausted just thinking about it—I am not sure that it makes much sense to break out of the regulatory structure of the country as a whole. The decision was taken on that basis.
It is difficult for people outside the House to follow this argument, because there is not much to devolve in broadcasting. There is an interesting and important public debate about how we can put a Scottish face on the broadcasting that is received in Scotland, and about whether we can build on the excellence of Scottish broadcasting to encourage cultural life, encourage expertise and bring back the Scottish diaspora of the broadcasting world. In all those respects, devolution gives great opportunities and great grounds for optimism.
However, in terms of statutory power—the legislative power that is at the heart of the Scottish Parliament—there is very little that could be devolved. Even the BBC would be extremely difficult to devolve, because, as I said in an intervention, it is a creature not of statute but of royal charter. Therefore, in effect, we are discussing very little.
That is not to underestimate, belittle or sweep to one side the importance of broadcasting as a cultural force, as a medium for the exchange of information, or as a way of giving people a picture of the world and giving the world a picture of Scotland. All the issues that we are discussing should be discussed; it is simply that they do not necessarily depend on the legalistic argument about the regulatory mechanism.
I do not agree—although it is arguable—that it is advantageous or important for matters concerning the maintenance of fairness and balance in programming to be handed to politicians or be directly influenced or controlled by them. I take the view that, in most of these areas, politicians—for good reasons, irrespective of party—have put in buffer organisations. We say that we do not want to be a country where, if we do not like what we see on our television set, we get on to the controller of that television channel, and say, "I am the Minister and that had bloomin' well better not happen again." It seems to me that, by doing so, one threatens democracy and essential freedoms that we all understand. The role of politicians is to set the regulatory framework—hold the ring, so to speak—and allow broadcasters to use their imagination, verve and innovative powers to produce the programming we all want.
There is an important difference of approach between those who have supported the amendments in the group before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East made it clear that he did not want a separate Scottish BBC. He wanted scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament of what the BBC was doing. Of course, the

hon. Member for Perth wants something very different—she wants separate Scottish broadcasting. She wants, to use an odd phrase, to repatriate the licence fees in Scotland. Presumably the Scottish BBC would then live on its own resources and on the excellence of what it can earn in addition to those resources, by selling its programmes abroad.
Those are two totally different approaches to the problem, and it is important for us to try to understand which we are going for. My view is that, if one did devolve, one would almost certainly do what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East proposes, but he should not underestimate this Parliament's ability to influence events, to deal with the realities and to encourage and promote broadcasting in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Perth, in an interesting and startling juxtaposition, said that all sorts of things could happen in the field of broadcasting. She said that there would be not a single word from the Scottish Parliament, but that no doubt it would debate the issues. Of course it will debate the issues if it considers that those issues are relevant to it, but I do not think that we need to follow her down the road of suggesting that we want to divide, and build a boundary between, broadcasting in different parts of the United Kingdom. If we wanted to do that, it would require a great deal of discussion, thought and preparation.
I know that many friends of mine in the BBC and in other parts of the broadcasting industry would wonder about such a separation. They would worry about what would happen if they relied on Scottish licence fee income. Transmission costs in Scotland are very much heavier than in some other parts of the United Kingdom. If they were not spread over the network, they would become a specific charge.
Scotland is first class at making top-class drama, and has produced many distinguished contributions to the national network, but it costs the same to make a programme for an audience of 5 million or of 60 million. One would need to rely on the programme being bought by the big channels south of the border, but there would be no guarantee of that. Therefore, there are many uncertainties and unknowns if one follows the hon. Member for Perth down that route.
Nevertheless, my main contention is that we must accept that it is better to leave the regulations on a British basis, but that we should do all we can to encourage and promote excellence of production and of operation for broadcasting in Scotland. Of course there will be a big debate. One gets into trouble by mentioning it, because people immediately think that one is running down Scottish broadcasting. However, anyone who takes a cursory interest in these matters knows that there will be such a debate. It does not depend on whether the matter is formally devolved in terms of schedule 5 or not. The argument will take place about what is right for the viewing public, and perhaps for those who are producing for the viewing public.
Many people think that we should opt out of 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock national news bulletins and produce our own in Scotland. Others fear that it would be a regressive step, which we should not take. I am not trying to pass judgment, but that debate will continue. The real debate is about how we organise, promote and innovate within


the existing regulatory framework. I am confident—very hopeful—that we shall be able to persuade, for example, the BBC that devolution is also a matter for it: that devolution within the BBC is a matter of prime importance, which it must take very seriously.
I did attend the seminar the other day. I was glad that Sir Christopher Bland was there, and that people from other parts of the network were there to listen and, I hope, to think about the consequences of what is happening and how the BBC, in terms of its charter, its aspirations and its great traditions, can respond, reflect and service the new confidence in Scotland and the broadcasting industry in Scotland.
I should like to think that devolution will give a big boost to the possibility of bringing to fruition the scheme to put a new headquarters building on Pacific quay in Glasgow, moving the headquarters from Queen Margaret drive and expanding the production facilities in a way that will be advantageous to broadcasting in Scotland.
Production facilities may be made available to independent producers. A great deal is happening there. I know of many people of talent who are returning to Scotland because they are attracted to the buzz, the movement and the excitement of the changes that will follow the constitutional reforms that I hope the House and this Parliament will agree in the next few months.
It is much more important to ensure that we do a good job in those terms than to get hooked up on a technical argument about breaking the regulatory framework of the United Kingdom without doing much to aid the really important cause of better broadcasting—better servicing of the viewing and listening public. I look forward with immense confidence, because I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Scottish broadcasting fraternity to respond.
I hold to the view that, in a sense, the split is not as fundamental as some people have made out. A great deal will happen in the weeks ahead which I hope will be helpful in setting the pattern and making it clear that Scotland has an increasingly important and independent role to play—in a non-political sense—within the framework of United Kingdom broadcasting. The Government have made proposals for strengthening the link between the Scottish Parliament and broadcasters. The BBC, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Council should remain under reserved matters in schedule 5, which means that formal accountability will remain at Westminster.
The draft executive devolution order requires consultation with Scottish Ministers in connection with the appointment of the Scottish member of the ITC, and we propose similar provisions for appointments to the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Radio Authority. That will require some adjustment to the powers of appointment to those bodies, because there is currently no separate provision for a Scottish member. That will be a new and considerable influence, which, under present arrangements, is not within the power of the Secretary of State. It will be a matter for the Scottish Executive and, ultimately, the Parliament.
There is much happening, and I think that those broadcasting bodies will lay their reports before the Scottish Parliament. Discussions on those matters are continuing, and we may later be able to report on them.

Mr. Godman: As always, I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. I agree that the overwhelming majority of the people I know in Queen Margaret drive are excited about the prospects of political devolution and its implications for broadcasting. I am concerned about the BBC hierarchy in London, which for years has sought to centralise the BBC. I hope that it will take on board what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Dewar: There has always been tension within the BBC over how it uses its resources. To be fair, it has been under increasing pressure, perhaps because of the reluctance of politicians to increase the licence fee or to look at other forms of financial support. We appreciate the difficulties, but I agree with my hon. Friend: we must persuade not just the BBC but many other broadcasters that they have a responsibility to respond to the challenges of devolution. There are signs of that happening.
I sometimes meet people whom I have not seen in Scotland for some years, and I say, "What are you doing here?" The reply is, "I have just got a job as the new Scottish political correspondent, a job that has just been created." People in the commissioning business tell me that they are getting increased budgets and that they will be doing more business, hopefully, with independent Scottish production units in Scottish broadcasting.
The BBC is governed by royal charter, not by statute, and the Government intend that the appointment of the national governor for Scotland will be made after full consultation with Scottish Ministers. Those are important safeguards. When we compare the powers of the Secretary of State on those matters with what will be provided for the Scottish Parliament, it is clear that the cupboard is anything but empty and that considerable and welcome changes are to be introduced.
I appreciate that long speeches are not necessarily right, so I shall quickly deal with some of the issues that were raised in the debate. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) asked about local television. Independent cable operators are controlled by the ITC. As I have said, we intend to strengthen the Scottish input to that body by ensuring that one of its members will represent Scotland. The ITC has a Scottish office, and takes an appreciated interest in what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) asked about a dedicated channel for Parliament. There have been no specific discussions on that, but there is much contact at the moment with the broadcasting authorities about how the new Parliament building will be serviced, and how a media centre or some such facility that will be adequate for the undoubted interest can be created. No doubt we shall look at such matters in due course.
7.45 pm
The question about the Scottish Law Commission was an interesting one. Perhaps it would be infra dig to say that it was produced like a rabbit out of a hat, but it is important.
The Scottish Law Commission was included in the draft order because it will continue to have functions that will affect United Kingdom Ministers and the law that relates to reserved matters. The contact is multi-faceted because law reform proposals in the domestic law of Scotland are bound to have a significant knock-on effect. Under current arrangements, the appointment of the chair and members of the commission are matters for the Secretary of State. We want to look at that, and I entirely agree that it is an important matter in the context of a body that is central to Scottish law.
The topic of the Social Security and Child Support Commissioners was even more unexpected as a subject for discussion. Of course social security is a reserved matter, and it will remain outwith the remit of the Scottish Parliament. It will be the preserve—I think that that is the appropriate word—of the Lord Chancellor. There will be provision for proper consultation, which will be achieved by means of the executive devolution order. The draft order was published on 5 February. It is another interesting interface for which reasonably proper and sensible provision has been made. It is clear that the debate will continue for a long time.

Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State seems to be coming to the end of his speech. Will he answer some of the questions about Gaelic broadcasting and funding?

Mr. Dewar: I have taken some advice about that and it seems that the amendment on it is not needed. We would not have opposed it if its intention had not already been achieved. The Government's grant to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee comes from the Scottish block, and decisions on the allocation of the fund are matters for the committee. As the Scottish block will be under the control of the Scottish Executive and, ultimately, the Scottish Parliament, that can be varied.

Mr. Dalyell: I asked about clause 83(5). There would be subordinate legislation detailing cross-border public bodies. I think that the Minister has the answer.

Mr. Dewar: I do not want to be a smart alick, but I have to say that my advisers are not there to prompt my hon. Friend. The working draft of the Cross-Border Public Bodies (Specification) Order 1999 was published yesterday, and I am sure that it can be made available to my hon. Friend. I shall check, and if there is any doubt, I am sure that we can resolve it by conversation.
There is provision in the draft executive devolution order for Government funding for Gaelic broadcasting to be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive within a regulatory framework, but the matter falls to the Scottish Executive. It will be open to Scottish Ministers, subject to the agreement of the Parliament, to vary the annual allocation of funds to the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee.
We do not need to make further provision. If there is better advice, or if some substantial worry is drawn to the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, he can in turn draw it to my attention. My advice is that he would be safe to let the matter drop, in the knowledge that his purpose has been well met in the existing arrangements.
I do not doubt that there will be a long argument and debate, but I am somewhat consoled by the fact that it will not be tonight, as we have only 11 minutes left on this group of amendments. I do not take a defeatist view of the debate—in fact, the very opposite. No group in Scottish life has more to gain from the changes—apart, perhaps, from politicians—or will get greater satisfaction out of the arrangements.
The Scottish people will not be forgotten. They are the masters at the end of the day, as the Conservative party knows to its cost.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is so easily amused.

Mr. Dewar: I take it from the hon. Gentleman's tone that he is not amused, which gives me some considerable satisfaction. However, we can discuss this on another occasion.
I cannot recommend the amendments to the House. I am sure that we will have much to celebrate in Scottish broadcasting in the years that lie ahead.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The Secretary of State surprised me with his final remarks—I think not. I draw to his attention the arrival in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who the right hon. Gentleman appears to think has come to ensure that I say precisely what he would have me say. I have known my hon. Friend for some 20 years and he has never yet succeeded in achieving the aim that the Secretary of State fondly imagines him to have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is right, and my hon. Friend's appearance in the Chamber is part of his continued attempt to achieve that control. However, I say to the assembled masses here that, if he has not succeeded in the past 20 years, he is certainly not going to succeed in the next 20 years. He will certainly not succeed tonight.
The fact is that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and my other hon. Friends agree because we agree, not because we are told what we must or must not think. This may surprise members of other political parties, but members of my party are able to come to some agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) is away on a parliamentary trip—

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Where has he gone?

Ms Cunningham: My hon. Friend is in Japan with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. I am sure that he is having a wonderful time, but not as wonderful a time as we are having.
I want briefly to refer to the aspects of the amendments that relate to clause 83. Although the overall intention behind the amendments relates to the devolution of broadcasting, some other issues have been raised. I note


what has been said about amendment No. 93, which is not an SNP amendment. I support the remarks about the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I look forward to the debate that we will undoubtedly have on another occasion.
Although the comments on amendment No. 93 related to the EOC, they also expressed the same underlying concern about the clause that I expressed in relation to broadcasting. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to accept it, or whether he wants to continue looking puzzled, but the truth is that there is concern about what all this ultimately will mean.
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about paragraph 2.10 of the White Paper. However, paragraph 2.11 has not been translated into the Bill. The Secretary of State is shaking his head. He is clearly trying to tell me that it does not need to be in the Bill. In that case, its inclusion in the White Paper was misdirection, which is a pity.
Our amendments are about the definition contained in clause 83. We envisage anomalies arising from that. It is all very well to say that, with good will, matters will work out—the truth is that invitations can be politely, graciously but frequently declined. We all decline invitations on occasion.
I am astonished that the debate about the devolution of broadcasting is seen as a threat to democracy. I have already quoted a number of prominent broadcasters who support our concept. I hope, and have every expectation, that Scottish broadcasting will thrive in the coming years.
I want to quote someone who is as well known to the Secretary of State as the other people I mentioned earlier. I refer to Nigel Smith, whom the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) may think is a wild-eyed separatist, along with all the other people he thinks are wild-eyed separatists. In fact, this particular wild-eyed separatist is on the Labour party vetting committee for Scottish Parliament candidates. He is also a former member of the BBC Scottish broadcasting council, and chairman of Scotland Forward.
In a letter, Nigel Smith gives a list of issues that a Scottish Parliament could debate, but over which it would have no related powers. I recognise that some of the issues have been raised by hon. Members, but Nigel Smith's list includes Channel 5 coverage in Scotland, the sale of BBC transmitters in Scotland, cross-media takeovers and the BBC licence in Scotland. Those are all issues that Nigel Smith thinks are important. He believes not only that the Scottish Parliament should be able to debate them, but that it should have the power to do something about them.
Nigel Smith is hardly someone whom the Government would regard as a star-gazing, wild-eyed revolutionary. If they did, he would be surprised to hear it. I have already referred to the comments of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East and his attack on "Voice for Scotland", which he claimed was following a separatist agenda. I am not sure to whom he was referring. Perhaps it was Pat Chalmers, who I understand was a Liberal Democrat councillor. I am sure that he would be surprised to discover that he was thought to be a wild-eyed separatist. Equally, Ruth Wishart would be surprised to discover that, in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman, she is a wild-eyed separatist.

Mr. Connarty: rose—

Ms Cunningham: I have only three minutes left, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
It was Ruth Wishart who provided me with the newspaper analogy that the hon. Gentleman seemed to find so threatening. Perhaps he should direct his concerns and fears to that eminent person, who is undoubtedly well known to the hon. Gentleman.
Nigel Smith's letter was written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He directly referred to the existing arrangements as indirect, diffuse and bound up with Scotland's small share in British broadcasting. His view is:
If … Devolution is to breathe new life into Scottish affairs some care should be taken to see that vitality is properly reflected in the most important medium of the Age"—
broadcasting.
It was daft to claim that we would not get the soaps in Scotland. People who suggest that should get a grip. I am happy to go on record that my preferred soap is "EastEnders". I make absolutely sure that it is taped if I am unable to watch it, as I do not want to miss it. However, it is a trivialisation of the debate to use those terms.
Nor is the debate about control—it is about having powers equivalent to those that Westminster currently has. Frankly, if it is so bad for the Scottish Parliament to have those powers, why is it acceptable for Westminster to have them? I quote Nigel Smith on that matter. He said:
This appeal should not be misrepresented as an argument for controlling broadcasting.
As I said, Nigel Smith is busy helping the Labour party to vet potential candidates for the Scottish Parliament. I therefore think that his views on the matter are very instructive and useful to share. I thank him.
I am grateful also to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) for his useful contribution in explaining the position of the constitutional convention. He is an example of the cross-party support for our amendment.
The international context is important, and we need more programming in Scotland that reflects Scottish interests in overseas matters. I specifically commend "Eorpa" on meeting that need week after week. It is one of the best factual programmes on Scottish television—in Gaelic, but subtitled for the rest of us who watch it avidly. It is another programme that I tape and ensure—

It being Eight o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [23 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 42, Noes 287.

Division No. 190]
[8 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Baker, Norman



Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronnie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brake, Tom
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Brand, Dr Peter
Gorrie, Donald


Burnett, John
Hancock, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Harris, Dr Evan


Cable, Dr Vincent
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chidgey, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cotter, Brian
Kirkwood, Archy






Livsey, Richard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tyler, Paul


Moore, Michael
Walker, Cecil


Oaten, Mark
Wallace, James


Öpik, Lembit
Webb, Steve


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. John Swinney.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darvill, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Allen, Graham
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Austin, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Battle, John
Dawson, Hilton


Bayley, Hugh
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beard, Nigel
Denham, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Begg, Miss Anne
Dismore, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Donohoe, Brian H


Benton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradshaw, Ben
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burden, Richard
Flint, Caroline


Burgon, Colin
Flynn, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Follett, Barbara


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gibson, Dr Ian


Church, Ms Judith
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godman, Norman A


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grogan, John


Colman, Tony
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Cooper, Yvette
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, John


Cranston, Ross
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Crausby, David
Heppell, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hesford, Stephen


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hinchliffe, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoey, Kate





Hoon, Geoffrey
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hope, Phil
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
O'Hara, Eddie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hutton, John
Pendry, Tom


Iddon, Dr Brian
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pike, Peter L


Jamieson, David
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pope, Greg


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Rammell, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kemp, Fraser



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rogers, Allan


Kidney, David
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ruane, Chris


Lepper, David
Salter, Martin


Leslie, Christopher
Sawford, Phil


Levitt, Tom
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Linton, Martin
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Singh, Marsha


Lock, David
Skinner, Dennis


Love, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCabe, Steve
Snape, Peter


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Soley, Clive


McDonagh, Siobhain
Squire, Ms Rachel


Macdonald, Calum
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McFall, John
Stevenson, George


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


McNulty, Tony
Stringer, Graham


MacShane, Denis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mallaber, Judy
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mandelson, Peter
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Touhig, Don


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Trickett, Jon


Martlew, Eric
Truswell, Paul


Michael, Alun
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Milburn, Alan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mitchell, Austin
Vis, Dr Rudi


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walley, Ms Joan


Moran, Ms Margaret
Ward, Ms Claire


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Watts, David


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wicks, Malcolm


Mudie, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Mullin, Chris







Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wray, James


Wilson, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wyatt, Derek


Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Mike
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

POWER TO ADAPT CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC BODIES

Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 461, in page 38, leave out lines 32 to 35.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 463, in page 39, line 7, at end add
'and it has been passed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.
No. 428, in clause 85, page 39, line 31, leave out 'has' and insert
'and such other persons or bodies as the Parliament may determine have'.
No. 462, page 39, line 31, at end add
'and it has been passed by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament'.

Dr. Fox: In his long and winding winding-up speech, the Secretary of State referred to the cross-border public bodies specification paper made available to hon. Members a couple of days ago, a paper whose naive optimism shines through. It talks about the Government envisaging that the Scottish Parliament will want to continue these arrangements. It
is very optimistic, to the extent that one would have to have powers well in excess of those of Mystic Meg to be able to predict anything of the sort.
8.15 pm
Clauses 83 to 85 give power to the part of the White Paper that deals with the statutory right to consultation. I want to know from the Minister what one or two of the terms in this part mean, which is why we have tabled these probing amendments.
I should like the Minister to give us the plain person's plain English guide to what "subordinate" actually means in clause 84 and how it relates to other clauses, especially clause 101(8). Everything seems to hinge on there being agreement. Clause 84(1)(a) is most extraordinary. It refers to
enabling powers to be exercised or requiring duties to be performed by the Scottish Ministers instead of by a Minister of the Crown, or by the one or by the other, or by both jointly or by either with the agreement of or after consultation with the other".

Thus the provisions in paragraph (a) gradually become watered down. They remind me of what a friend of mine said after a particularly bad night. She said that she was never going to drink again;, well, not during the day; well, not in the morning, except for white wine—before she had a bloody Mary before breakfast. Paragraph (a) waters down the provision, but amendment No. 461 would delete that paragraph.
I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Can subordinate legislation
make provision in relation to a cross-border public body
by agreement or after consultation? Does "after consultation" mean that even if no agreement is reached, it can all go ahead anyway? Does it mean that under subordinate legislation the Parliament can do exactly what it wants?
Amendment No. 462 deals with perhaps the most interesting aspect of the matter. We want to ensure that there will be sufficient scrutiny by the House, so we wish the Bill to state that no subordinate legislation shall be made under the clause unless the cross-border public body concerned has been consulted and an affirmative resolution has been passed by both Houses. That would give the House sufficient power to protect the future of the cross-border bodies and would prevent the ping-pong and recipe for friction that are all too apparent in the clause.
I especially look forward to the Minister defining exactly what "subordinate" means in the clause so that, as the Secretary of State said at the outset, we can avoid the worst-case scenario in which we get into utterly unnecessary scraps about the future of these bodies once the Parliament is up and running.

Mr. Dalyell: Clause 84(3) requires the cross-border body concerned to be consulted before subordinate legislation is made to adapt it under the clause. What form is this consultation going to take?

Mr. McLeish: Before speaking specifically to the amendments, I should like to take up and deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). First, the notes on clauses contain an explanation of the various subsections. Secondly, we anticipate coming back on Report with some technical amendments that will clarify and simplify some of the issues raised. Thirdly, in an attempt to be courteous and helpful, I will send a letter to the hon. Gentleman about the raft of clauses that deal with subordinate legislation, giving an insight into how they are constructed and hang together and what the impact will be on, for example, consultation. I hope that that is helpful.

Dr. Fox: Apart from writing to me, will the Minister make the letter available to all parties, and will he ensure that copies are available in the Library for the benefit of all right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. McLeish: I apologise for that oversight. Copies will be sent to the spokespersons of the parties and to right hon. and hon. Members who have attended our proceedings and taken an active interest in them.
The amendments relate to important considerations dealing with subordinate legislation. In the context of amendments Nos. 461, 463, 428 and 462, clauses 84 and


85 are essential elements of the provision which the Bill makes to implement the proposals in the White Paper for dealing with those public bodies that are concerned with both devolved and reserved matters. These are the cross-border public bodies that we have been talking about.
Amendment No. 461 would delete an essential part of clause 84—that which enables ministerial powers and duties to be exercised in a way appropriate to the body concerned, either by transferring them to the Scottish Ministers or providing that they will be exercised jointly, after consultation or with agreement. The amendment would entrench the position under clause 83 whereby the functions are exercisable only by a Minister of the Crown, albeit with a requirement to have consulted the Scottish Minister in certain cases. For some bodies, that position might be appropriate, but for many it is only right that the Scottish Ministers should exercise appropriate control.
It would, for example, make sense that a Scottish Minister should alone be able to exercise a power of direction in relation to devolved matters in or as regards Scotland. The bodies are, after all, concerned with devolved matters for which the Scottish Executive will be accountable. Of course, if we fail to make provision for a fair and equitable reallocation of powers in the way provided for by clause 84, it will make it all the more likely that the Scottish Parliament will decide to legislate to set up a separate body. It seems to be far more sensible and efficient instead to create the conditions under which cross-border bodies can continue to serve both United Kingdom and Scottish Ministers.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the hon. Gentleman will agree that his amendment would introduce an undesirable rigidity into the arrangements that can be made for enabling these public bodies to continue to operate on a cross-border basis, and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Dr. Fox: Subsection (1)(a) reads:
either with the agreement of or after consultation with the other".
Does "after consultation" mean that if no agreement is reached, powers can still be taken under subordinate legislation to go ahead, even if one side or party is unwilling that that should be so?

Mr. McLeish: We intend to have consultation and, we hope, agreement. We are talking of cross-border public bodies as defined in the relevant clauses. We hope that agreement will always be the result. If not, the procedures that are provided by the Bill in the light of failure to agree would be set in motion. Such procedures are contained in other clauses. It is important to recognise that we are talking about subordinate legislation in both houses. We are talking also about agreement with the principal parties concerned. If we talk about a cross-border public body, we talk also about reserved and devolved matters involving the same body. Therefore, the responsibilities of Holyrood and those of Westminster would proceed on the basis that I have outlined.
Amendments Nos. 463 and 462 are similar in effect. They would require subordinate legislation under clauses 84 and 85 to be subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. First, I should assure the hon.

Gentleman that I fully share his concern that there should be adequate scrutiny of any subordinate legislation that is made under clauses 84 and 85. However, I contend that amendments Nos. 482 and 483 would be unnecessarily restrictive. As for clause 101, any order made under clause 84 must be laid both in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament. In terms of clause 102, these powers are open powers, which means, among other things, that the order may be subject to affirmative or negative procedure.
In practice, we think that the subject matter of these orders will often not require debate. It is surely not being suggested that, for example, where the order is concerned only with a power to certify the accounts of a particular body, it should be subject to affirmative procedure. We certainly do not think that it would be appropriate to make every such order subject to affirmative procedure, as amendment No. 463 would do.
Again, we are talking about flexibility and considering the specific issue that will be the subject of subordinate legislation. I think that flowing from that would be a decision taken by both Houses on the procedures to be adopted. In the light of what I have said, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments Nos. 482 and 483.
I move on to amendment No. 428. We are putting in place provisions to enable public bodies to continue to operate on a cross-border basis, but we must take account of the fact, that where matters are not reserved, the Scottish Parliament will be able to legislate to provide that such a body should no longer exercise its functions in relation to devolved matters in or as regards Scotland. Most probably, this would be in the context of a decision to set up separate Scottish arrangements. Clause 85 enables the practical consequences of such a decision to be dealt with, by enabling the transfer of appropriate property.
Again, it is all about flexibility being built into the future. The current settlement on cross-border public bodies could change. The proposed facility will allow both Parliaments closely to examine the distribution of the powers and responsibilities and allow sensible decisions to be made in the light of what is happening around the bodies concerned.
The clause imposes a requirement for the body concerned to be consulted before an order is made, and that is absolutely right. Amendment No. 428 would, in addition, require prior consultation with other persons to be determined by the Scottish Parliament. Presumably the hon. Gentleman would want the United Kingdom Parliament to have a similar role. However, in the Government's view such additional requirements are unnecessary. As I have said, the procedure for subordinate legislation under the clause requires agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, and orders will be laid before both Parliaments. That surely will be enough to ensure that all those with a legitimate interests will be aware of what is proposed. I cannot see the point of the additional mechanism that would be imposed by the amendment.
In the light of those comments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that amendment No. 428 is unnecessary and that he will not press it.

Mr. Dalyell: What is my hon. Friend's answer to my question on subsection (3)?

Mr. McLeish: I have answered the point. The question is about subordinate legislation, and we are talking about a process where subordinate legislation will be processed by both Houses. It is clearly the position that no action can be taken until the cross-border public body has been consulted on the changes that are envisaged. The process will ensure consultation between the body and the Parliament. It allows for discussions, if necessary, between the Scottish Executive and Westminster Ministers, and from there would flow the appropriate legislation to enact that which was being suggested. It will be a comprehensive process of consultation. Again, this is reflected in other parts of the Bill, and the Committee will remember our discussions on various other procedures affecting the change from Westminster to Holyrood.

Dr. Fox: I find myself somewhat disconcerted and almost speechless given the Minister's new-found flexibility. In almost his opening sentence, he agreed with the Opposition that the current descriptions and explanations of "subordinate" are virtually incomprehensible as they are written. We are glad to be told by the Minister that the Government will require to bring technical amendments before the House of Commons so that the provisions can become understandable. That information is gratefully received by those of us who are not lawyers, who thought that we simply could not understand the Bill.
I welcome the Minister's plan to write to all Members who have taken an interest in these matters, to set out explanations of how the Government will proceed. That having been said, I have reservations about references to subordinate legislation remaining in the Bill, but on this occasion we shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I look forward to his explanations. No doubt we can return to these matters at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I know that you will rule me out, Sir Alan, if what I am about to say is out of order. I tell my hon. Friend the Minister immediately that I do not expect a full answer.
With all this laying of orders it would seem to be assumed that there will be available to the Scottish Parliament the expertise that we often take for granted of the Clerks of the House of Commons. I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask the question, but are there proposals for seconding members of the expert Clerks Department? We are talking of refined expertise. Certainly, 20 years ago there was a good deal of controversy about this. I do not know the answer to the question. If my hon. Friend says, "I shall give you the answer but not on clause 84", I would take that as acceptable.
In parenthesis, there is the question of transferring the expertise of a Fees Office. I shall not stray out of order but I am wondering about these practical matters.

Mr. McLeish: I am tempted to say that the transfer of the Fees Office or some equivalent might rank higher in the priorities of some hon. Members. I should like to give my hon. Friend this simple reassurance. We are establishing a serious Parliament in Edinburgh. Through our civil servants, we receive some of the best advice available and we have set up a committee of the consultative steering group to look at technical procedures. My hon. Friend can be absolutely assured that we intend to provide a professional operation at Holyrood from day one, which means that we will need to look at all the issues he mentioned. I have no reason to doubt that expert advice will be available in Edinburgh at the appropriate time. We have it available in this House and it will be available in Holyrood.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85

POWER TO TRANSFER PROPERTY OF CROSS-BORDER PUBLIC — BODIES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I have a small point, which comes from the Law Society of Scotland. It is concerned about clause 85(5) and wants an amendment ensuring that the obligation to consult on subordinate legislation affecting cross-border public bodies will be adequate and not limited to the body concerned. The reason is that the Law Society is of the view that wide consultation on proposals to make subordinate legislation is necessary, especially in relation to cross-border bodies. Does the Minister have any reflections on that request?

Mr. McLeish: The Law Society has made some constructive points, but, again, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that those points are covered. There is already consultation with the cross-border public body affected, but wider consultation will invariably happen, because we shall be dealing with two serious orders that have to be processed through Holyrood and Westminster. In that process, there will be wider consultation than is envisaged in the direct consultation between the cross-border public body and the two Parliaments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

MALADMINISTRATION

Mr. Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 410, in page 39, line 34, leave out 'to its members'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 411, in page 40, line 4, at end add—
'(4A) The Parliament may, by subordinate legislation, alter the list of authorities within its investigatory jurisdiction in so far as it relates to matters which are not reserved.'.

Mr. Gorrie: The purpose of the amendment is quite clear: it is designed to make it simpler and more tidy for the Scottish Parliament to set up its ombuds-system.
As it stands, the Bill suggests that provision should be made for the
investigation of relevant complaints made to its members".
As I understand it, the system at Westminster is that all requests for investigation to the ombudsman have to go through a Member of Parliament. In the case of local government, it stated that any request had to go through a local councillor, but the system was changed to ensure that requests could go direct. We are suggesting that, in the case of the Scottish Parliament, any form of application can be used, so that people can go direct to the ombudsperson, or to their Scottish Member of Parliament, or to their Westminster Member of Parliament, or to their European Member of Parliament, or to a local councillor.
In that way, people will not be put off or confused about which of the different people they should approach. Some members of the public will not distinguish between powers held at Holyrood—or Glasgow—and powers held here at Westminster. There is confusion among hon. Members of this House, so there is bound to be greater confusion among members of the public. It is much tidier if any route can be used.

Mr. Godman: Would it not make better sense to allow the Scottish Parliament itself to determine how complaints should be brought to an ombudsman?

Mr. Gorrie: Our amendment would allow that to happen. We suggest removing the words "to its members", so that the clause would read:
The Parliament shall make provision for the investigation of relevant complaints made … in respect of any action taken".
It would then be up to the Parliament to set out the precise system. Under the Bill as it stands, people would have to contact their Member of the Scottish Parliament.
An additional issue is that in the Scottish Parliament, there will not be the same degree of ownership, if I may call it that, of a complaint by the constituency Member. That is because there will also be the list Members, many of whom will be well-known in the area and who may be approached by the public to pursue a case. We think that our suggestion is extremely constructive and would help to speed matters along the way.

Mr. Oliver Heald: The local government ombudsman is able to take complaints direct from the public. Is that the model that the hon. Gentleman prefers and is proposing that the Scottish Parliament should use?

Mr. Gorrie: We accept the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) that

it would be up to the Parliament to determine the precise arrangements, but we have no objection to an individual citizen being able to contact the ombudsperson directly, if that is what is decided.
As I understand it, the view in ombuds-circles is that it would be more helpful if people were able to go direct to the ombudsman, rather than having to go through their Member of Parliament, so we think that that is a good route. However, our main point is that the Bill is too prescriptive: it should be open to the Scottish Parliament to decide what system it wants to use and we should not prescribe that complaints should have to go through a Member of that Parliament.
Amendment No. 411 merely suggests that the Scottish Parliament should be able to alter fairly easily the list of duties covered by the ombudsperson, so that if new duties emerge, there will be no great difficulty in adding to the list. We feel that our amendments are helpful and uncontroversial, and I am happy to commend them to the Committee.

Mr. Heald: It is a curious aspect of the Bill that some matters are left so vague, and that is certainly true in respect of the ombudsman for Scotland.
As hon. Members will know from their own experience dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the local government ombudsman and the health ombudsman, there is already a good deal of overlap between the jurisdiction of the various authorities that have been established. One of my concerns, which prompts the first of my questions to the Minister, is to ask what is going to happen in respect of the various Scottish authorities which are already covered by the parliamentary commissioner, for example, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Homes, the Scottish medical practices committee, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish tourist board and the Sports Council for Scotland? It is not clear from the wording of clause 86(1) whether those bodies come under the terms of the clause and are bodies which act
on behalf of … a member of the Scottish Executive".
I should be grateful if the Minister could explain what will happen to the various authorities under the new arrangements. He may say that the Government want to leave a good deal of discretion to the Scottish Parliament. What would be the legal effect of the clause without the amendment? Would the Parliament be able to take on the responsibility of having its own commissioner for those important bodies in Scotland?
My second question is whether it is possible for the job done by the health ombudsman for the United Kingdom to be severed so that the Scottish part of the job is dealt with by the Scottish ombudsman. Is that the Government's proposal?
Thirdly, what about the functions of the various other authorities that have responsibilities similar to those of the ombudsman? Fourthly, will it be possible for a Scottish ombudsman to take over a range of responsibilities for various authorities in Scotland, or will scrutiny in an area of devolved responsibility be dealt with by the UK Parliament?
Finally, the Scottish Parliament may take responsibility for tourism in Scotland. Two of the reserved matters in the Bill are the subject matter of the Timeshare Act 1992 and the Package Travel, Holidays and Tours Regulations


1992, which are central to tourism. What would happen if the Scottish tourist board were dealt with by the Parliament, but the UK ombudsman dealt with scrutiny of the Scottish tourist board?

Mr. Dalyell: I shall treasure the collective suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) of ombuds-circles. I like the idea of moving in ombuds-circles.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: An alternative to crop circles.

Mr. Dalyell: Maybe, but we all have a problem. Come the Scottish Parliament, what about our surgeries? Endless people will come to us as at present. When they turn up, it is difficult to say, "That has nothing to do with me, go to your Member of the Scottish Parliament."

Mrs. Anne McGuire: That happens anyway.

Mr. Dalyell: It will be a difficult situation for all of us.

Mr. Godman: I have some sympathy for the amendments, but if the avenue along which complaints are made is widened, how will the ombudsman—or ombudswoman, presumably—deal with vexatious or ridiculous complaints? Constituents currently bring complaints for the parliamentary ombudsman to their Member of Parliament. That is not a bad system. Not so long ago, I had occasion to forward a complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman—I think that it was Mr. Reid at the time—from a pregnant 17-year-old girl who was given no help by the Department of Social Security. Local social workers had also achieved nothing on her behalf. The Department had acted very badly towards her. I forwarded her complaint to Mr. Reid. The then Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Tony Newton, came to the Dispatch Box to apologise to my constituent through me.
The fact that a Member of Parliament can forward a complaint carries some weight. The Member of Parliament might have to tell the constituent that their complaint is not one of maladministration. We may have to be more delicate than to say that it is a vexatious complaint, but it really should not be taken to the ombudsman.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system is well understood? Someone who has a complaint about a public body goes to their Member of Parliament. They both know that the threat of reference to the ombudsman is powerful. Would it not be wrong if confusion crept into the system, with different ombudsmen for different matters? Is not the definition of an ombuds-circle what happens if someone goes to their Member of Parliament, is referred to the Westminster ombudsman and is then told that the matter is one for the Scottish ombudsman, so it goes to the Member of the Scottish Parliament, who sends it to the Scottish ombudsman, who in turn says that it is a matter for the health ombudsman?

Mr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman is now referring to this circle. With the creation of a number of ombudsmen

and ombudswomen, the public are gradually becoming aware of the spheres of responsibility of respective administrators.
My concern is that the amendment takes away the involvement of a Member of Parliament. On the matter of a local authority ombudsman, it is reasonable enough to argue, as many of us did, that local authority tenants, for example, sometimes found difficulty in complaining about the local authority housing department to the local councillor who may well have been a member of the housing committee. In all conscience, I believe that, given my experience of the workings of the system—not the circle—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) ought to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Wallace: This is a matter of practicality. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is standing for the Scottish Parliament. Assuming that he is not and he is a Westminster Member, would he say to a constituent who came to him with a complaint and who wanted to go to the ombudsman—given that the hon. Gentleman immediately identifies that the matter is within the Scottish Parliament's jurisdiction—"Sorry, I cannot take this complaint to an ombudsman. Go and find your MSP"? The same would apply if the hon. Gentleman received the complaint by correspondence. Would not he be creating an extra layer of correspondence?

Mr. Godman: Not at all. People come along to our surgeries every day with complaints about housing, and we have to say that it is not our responsibility but the responsibility of their local councillor. Similarly, if people come along with concerns about social work matters, we have to say, "This is a matter for your councillor." If someone came to me with a complaint of maladministration and I thought that his or her complaint would be best dealt with by my local MSP, I would advise them to go to their MSP's next surgery. The matter would be the MSP's responsibility, not mine.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) clearly wants to defend his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), but he is not thinking clearly. He knows that, at the minute, if one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) wanted him to pass a complaint to the local authority ombudsman, my hon. Friend could not do so. He would have to see a councillor, who would send it on. That is the way that it works.

Mr. Godman: That regulation was of course changed not so long ago, and I agreed with that change. There were times when the local councillor might have been involved directly in the decision making against which the complaint was being made. That does not happen with Members of Parliament, unless they are Ministers. I do not see the problem that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) raised about referring a complaint made in a Westminster Member's surgery to a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
There is good sense in a Member of Parliament channelling the complaint to the ombudsman. I have made a number of such complaints. In most cases,


the ombudsman has said that they were not cases of maladministration. However, I have given the example of the young pregnant girl who was treated very callously by the local social security department, which forced Mr. Tony Newton—who was only too willing to do so—to apologise to her at the Dispatch Box. He was a first-class Cabinet Minister, despite being a Conservative. He also wrote to me saying that he agreed with the ombudsman finding against his Department. That is a powerful tool that is used by Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. We should leave clause 86 as it is, yet allow for the Parliament to decide in the course of time to modify the system if it wishes. I like the idea of a Member of Parliament being involved in such complaints.

Mr. McAllion: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but a certain confusion is evident on the part of everyone who has taken part so far. I think that we have all agreed that it is wrong that councillors, for example, should have to refer complaints against the council to the local government ombudsman, because there is an obvious conflict of interests when councillors complain against their own council.
However, exactly the same applies to Members of this Parliament as applies to Members of the Scottish Parliament. The complaint may be against a Housing Minister or a Health Minister in the Scottish Parliament, and that person may be a Labour Minister. If one's local Member of the Scottish Parliament happens to be Labour too, do we not see a conflict of interests? A Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament would have to put forward a complaint against a Labour Minister in a Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament. The same conflict of interest arises there as arises now with councils.
Therefore, there is an element of confusion. I would have no objection to taking the phrase "to its members" out of the clause, because that would leave the Scottish Parliament to draw up its own code of guidance about how the right could be exercised by individuals throughout Scotland.
In the modern age, we always have to beware of the party system. We must remember that this Parliament is dominated by the party system. The Scottish Parliament is likely to be less so; none the less, it will still be evident—

Mr. Heald: Was the possibility that the hon. Gentleman had in mind that in a regional list system, if someone who was No. 1 on the list misbehaved, he might be No. 9 next time?

Mr. McAllion: To be No. 9 in a list would be a big step up for me. The lesson applies both ways. It is not only list Members to whom pressure can be applied. Pressure can also be applied to Members who stand in constituencies, and that is done most effectively, I can assure the hon. Gentleman.
My point is serious. If members of the public have the right to complain against an Executive in Parliament, the road for making the complaint should not lie solely through the Members of that Parliament, because the party

system will come into play and there will be pressure on Members not to further the complaint if to do so would work to the detriment of their party. I am speaking not about the Labour party alone, but about whichever party happens to be in power at the time.
This is an interesting debate. I would like to hear why we should not open up the ways in which people can complain about the activities of Ministers in Parliament, because I am in favour of individuals having the maximum right to complain about Governments.

Mr. Davidson: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does himself and his colleagues something of an injustice when he says that most Members would have reservations about sending something to the ombudsman if it might embarrass their party. The ombudsman is empowered to deal not with policy matters, but only with maladministration, and the overwhelming majority of Members would completely disregard the party loyalty of the Minister involved when deciding whether to put forward a particular case.
Nobody seriously believes that any Minister directly, himself or herself, does all the administration on individual social security or housing cases, or on anything else, so I do not believe that problems would be put directly at the door of individual Ministers, as my hon. Friend suggested.
However, I still have reservations about what is being proposed, because I worry that if a complaints procedure is open to all and sundry, it leaves the system open to what are described as vexatious litigants. I have several constituents who come to me at the moment wanting matters to be pursued with the ombudsman—or the ombudsperson, or even ombuds-circles, to coin a phrase.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: rose—

Mr. Davidson: Let me give my examples, and then I shall let the hon. Lady intervene.
One lady is especially upset because the Benefits Agency does not provide additional benefit for people with dogs. She believes that a supplementary payment should be made to those with dogs. I have tried to indicate to her that this is a policy matter, and not an administration matter; it seems clear to me that the elected Member of Parliament has a responsibility to cut such matters out of the system.
Similarly, a lady told me that she wanted to see her referendum paper. She wanted to know where it was, and she believed that the fact that she was not allowed to see it was an example of maladministration which she wanted pursued. That sort of thing could easily clutter up the entire system unnecessarily.
Another constituent asked me how she knew that I had been elected. It is a good point, which has had me somewhat confused. I explained that she could write to the returning officer, but she had done so. He had written back, but she asked how the returning officer knew that I had been elected. How did she know that the votes cast were cast for me? How did she know that the counters counted the votes correctly? I can see this being an issue that would take up considerable time of the ombudsman, whatever system was used. It would clog up the system. We should leave the system as it is and look to see how the matter progresses in future.

Mrs. Laing: I would like to ask the Minister whether he is taking seriously the new vocabulary being used


during our discussions on the Bill. We are quite used to the idea of an ombudsman—it is the title given to someone who looks at alleged maladministration. The word comes from German. [HON. MEMBERS: "Swedish."] Members of the Scottish National party say it comes from Swedish. It is from that sort of language.

Mr. John Swinney: European?

Mrs. Laing: European, but not Latin-based—that is the point I am making. It has been brought into our language and accepted.
Is it not taking gender balance too far to start talking about ombudspersons? I do not know the Swedish word for woman, but if one was going to be perfect about it, one would have to have an ombudsfrau rather than an ombudsman. The whole point about an ombudsman is that it is not a man or a woman—it is someone who carries out a certain duty. I suppose that Labour Members would like twinned ombudspersons, so that if there were one ombudsman, there would have to be one ombudsfrau. If they want to use that system in the Parliament, they must want it to be used in all aspects of public life. It is nonsense.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The point about the gender balance is to engender a new politics of consensus, but we all know how bogus that is. Indeed, Mr. Martin, you will remember that, only three weeks ago, when we had the debate on the Foreign Secretary's diary secretary, the worst offenders in terms of the most disgraceful politics were the new Labour women.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady must not pursue that matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman in future will not draw the Chair into his arguments.

Mrs. Laing: I will not pursue that matter.
The serious point is that, once again, we have considerable confusion. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that people would be confused about which ombudsman to go to, and about which cases go to which ombudsman. One will not know to whom to complain—the Member of Parliament, the Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament or the local government representative.
Moreover, the duties that Members of Parliament currently carry out for all their constituents will be discharged either by themselves, MSPs or someone else. That highlights the fact that Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster will not have a full job when half their work is done by MSPs.

Mr. McLeish: I shall first comment on the points that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) raised on how the various bodies will be affected by the advent of the Scottish Parliament. Conservative Front Benchers always want to make life more difficult than it will actually be. We should return to the first principles that we have talked through in our consideration of various clauses. There are reserved bodies and cross-border bodies, and we are now specifically talking about investigations into maladministration in parliamentary activities. It should be

obvious that such a wide range of bodies that will be accountable to the Holyrood Parliament will fall into the three categories that I have mentioned.
The important point about commissioners is that the Scottish Parliament will be able to establish a body responsible for examining maladministration. It will be able to develop the roles of the health service and local authority ombudsmen—the specifics will be taken care of in that instance.
9 pm
Hon. Members have asked about the practicalities of the relationships between MSPs and Westminster Members of Parliament. Again, that will inevitably work itself out with experience—that has happened with local councils just as, before local government reorganisation in Scotland, it happened with regional and district councils. I never had any problems sorting out where responsibilities lay and, given the common sense of the participants, I do not foresee problems arising when the new system is established.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: As I know from experience, people bring local government matters to the surgeries of Members of Parliament, partly because they believe, perhaps mistakenly, that Members of Parliament have extra clout to deal with the problem because, ultimately, they can go to the top of the particular tree that is directing administration. When the Scottish Parliament is established, however, Westminster Members of Parliament will have no remit in certain matters—Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies will not have the clout to deal with those matters. That will give rise to some confusion.

Mr. McLeish: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point—he has made some good arguments in the debate. Arrangements must be worked out in practice. When the Scottish Parliament is established, there will still be councillors and Members of the Westminster Parliament, as well as constituency MSPs and list system MSPs. I have no doubt that that will work out—there is no reason why it should not. Every time local government has been reorganised, problems have arisen because the participants have had to deal with different problems.
As to clout, many of my constituents mistakenly believe that their Member of Parliament can open doors and wave a magic wand. Sometimes the timing of the Member of Parliament's involvement can seem to do that, but I am sure that it has more to do with due process than with my efforts. I believe, in good faith, that the systems will work and that there will be clarity. Custom and practice will work matters out in each of the Scottish constituencies.
I shall deal with the more narrowly focused amendments. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 410 and 411, although I sympathise with the points that hon. Members made about them. The Bill imposes a duty on the Parliament to make provision for the investigation of certain complaints made to MSPs of maladministration by the Scottish Administration. That parallels the arrangements that apply to complaints made through Members of the House of Commons.
The provision does not preclude the Scottish Parliament from making arrangements for complaints received via other routes to be investigated. That should properly be


left to the Scottish Parliament to consider. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) seems to be saying that the amendments would do that, but I shall explain in a minute that there will be a minimum statutory requirement for the Parliament. I hope that the Parliament will be able to stay with that, or indeed to develop it in the spirit of the amendments.
The Scottish Parliament may indeed think it right that its arrangements for the investigation of complaints of maladministration should enable members of the public to make complaints directly to a Scottish ombudsman, or to whatever office or body the Parliament sets in place. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
On the other hand, the discipline of providing only for the investigation of complaints made to Members has its advantages. That arrangement has worked well here: it ensures that Members of Parliament are aware of their constituents' problems and are regularly informed about the actions of Departments. It also gives us a chance, where appropriate, to resolve the complaints ourselves without the need for a formal investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
There is often a frustration in the community that complaints have to be processed through the Member of Parliament. That said, we have heard comments about vexatious or trivial complaints, and the filter often acts as a discipline. There are arguments for and against, but the main point is that the Parliament should be able to deal with a complaint and take it further if it wishes, or stick with the statutory requirement if it does not.
I am sure that hon. Members agree that it is important for any arrangements for the investigation of maladministration by the Scottish Administration to be effective and efficient. The provision in the Bill should go some way towards ensuring that, but the clause lays down only the minimum statutory requirement. I would expect the Scottish Parliament to want to build on that requirement to develop a system appropriate to Scottish circumstances.
Indeed, that system could be better than the one that currently operates at Westminster. In developing its system, the Parliament must have regard, among other matters, to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, but it is important that the detailed arrangements should be left for the Parliament to consider.
I am afraid that, again, the Government cannot accept amendment No. 411. The clause places a duty on the Parliament to make provision for the investigation of certain complaints of maladministration arising from the action of the Scottish Administration. It does not refer specifically to the investigation of complaints made against other bodies or authorities.
The Bill sets out the Parliament's minimum duty. I am certain that the Parliament will want to consider what other bodies it should make provision for. The United Kingdom ombudsman currently investigates complaints against a range of bodies, including bodies wholly concerned with matters that are to be devolved. The Scottish Parliament will be able to provide for complaints about such bodies in future.
I think it appropriate, however, to allow the Scottish Parliament to make its own arrangements. There is no need for amendment No. 411, as the Bill gives the

Parliament the desired flexibility to make arrangements for the investigation of complaints against other bodies. I hope that, with that clarification, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Gorrie: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. If the Bill means what he says it means, that is satisfactory from our point of view and we will not press the matter to a vote. My hon. Friends are more concerned to vote on judicial circles than on ombudsman circles. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 to 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I beg to move amendment No. 266, in clause 89, page 40, line 35, after '(1)', insert 'Subject to subsection (3)'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 26, in page 40, line 35, leave out 'continue to'.
Amendment No. 27, in page 40, line 36, after 'appointment', insert 'or removal'.
Amendment No. 267, in page 40, leave out from beginning of line 38 to end of line 1 on page 41 and insert—
'(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the First Minister shall recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a person as—

(a) a judge of the Court of Session (other than the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk); or
(b) a sheriff principal or sheriff.

(3) The Prime Minister shall not make any recommendation to Her Majesty under subsection (1) nor shall the First Minister make any recommendation to Her Majesty under subsection (2), unless the nominee has been recommended to the Prime Minister or First Minister by the Judicial Services Commission for Scotland.
(4) The Judicial Services Commission for Scotland shall be constituted and have the powers and functions set out in Schedule (The Judicial Services Commission for Scotland.)'.
Amendment No. 429, in page 40, line 39, leave out from 'been' to end of line 40 and insert
'included in a list, submitted by the First Minister to the Prime Minister, of persons suitably qualified and experienced to hold either of the offices specified in subsection (1) above.
(2A) Before submitting the list specified in subsection (2) above, the First Minister shall consult the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland'.
Amendment No. 28, in page 40, line 40, at end insert—
'(2A) The Prime Minister shall not recommend to Her Majesty the removal of any person from the office of Lord President of the Court of Session or Lord Justice Clerk unless the First Minister advises that such a recommendation should be made.
(2B) The First Minister shall not give such advice unless the Parliament has resolved that the Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk should be removed from office and the number of members voting in favour of the resolution is not less than three—quarters of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 29, in page 40, line 44, leave out 'or'.


Amendment No. 30, in page 41, line 1, at end insert
',or
(c) the Chairman of the Scottish Land Court.'.
Amendment No. 430, in page 41, line 1, at end insert:—
'(3A) Before making any recommendation to Her Majesty in relation to an appointment specified in subsection (3), the First Minister shall consult the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland.
(3B) Before making any recommendation to Her Majesty in relation to the appointment of a sheriff the First Minister shall also consult the Sheriffs Principal'.
Amendment No. 31, in page 41, line 2, after 'Session' insert
'other than the Lord President or Lord Justice Clerk.'.
Amendment No. 431, in page 41, line 2, after 'Session', insert 'Sheriff Principal or Sheriff'.
Amendment No. 432, in page 41, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) The First Minister shall make such a recommendation if, and only if, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk have undertaken, of their own accord or at the request of the First Minister, an investigation in the fitness for the office of the judge, sheriff principal or sheriff, as the case may be, and have reported in writing to the First Minister, together with a statement of their reasons, that the judge, sheriff principal or sheriff is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour.
(4B) When an investigation under subsection (4B) above is into the fitness for the office of either the Lord President of the Court of Session or the Lord Justice Clerk, such investigation shall be carried out by the other and by two additional judges of the Court of Session nominated by the First Minister.
(4C) The First Minister shall make such a recommendation if, and only if, a Resolution approving of the proposed removal of the judge, sheriff principal or sheriff, as the case may be, has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 32, in page 41, line 4, at end insert—
'(a) he receives a report from the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk that the judge is unfit for office by reason of inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour, and
(b)'.
Amendment No. 33, in page 41, line 7, leave out 'two—thirds' and insert 'three quarters.'.
New schedule 1—'The Judicial Services Commission for Scotland—
—(1) There shall be a Judicial Services Commission for Scotland consisting of—

(i) a lay President;
(ii) three judges, including at least one from an intermediate court, elected by the judges by such method as a Scottish Act of Parliament shall prescribe;
(iii) two persons who have regularly exercised rights of audience in the superior courts for not less than 15 years; and
(iv) five lay members, who are broadly representative of the community;

(2) The Judicial Services Commission may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership;
(3) the members of the Judicial Services Commission (other than judicial members) shall be appointed by the First Minister after consultation with the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk;
(4) The lay members shall be selected by the First Minister from a list of names submitted by the Commissioner for Public Appointments;

(5) If either the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk expresses dissent from a proposed appointment, the fact of the dissent shall be published if the Prime Minister or First Minister proceeds to make a recommendation to Her Majesty;
(6) The members of the Judicial Services Commission shall be appointed for such terms (being not less than 5 years) as a Scottish Act of Parliament may prescribe;
(7) No person may be appointed for a term which would expire after that person has attained the age of 70 years;
(8) A member of the Judicial Services Commission shall cease to hold office—

(i) upon the expiry of the term of appointment (which, subject to sub—paragraph (7), may be renewed); or
(ii) if the member ceases to have the qualifications necessary for appointment; or
(iii) on receipt by the First Minister of a letter of resignation from the member; or
(iv) in the case of a judicial member, if the member is removed from office; or
(v) in the case of a non-judicial member, if the member is removed from office by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

(9) The Judicial Services Commission shall, in nominating persons for appointment to judicial office, adopt procedures for the identification of candidates so as to ensure, so far as practicable, that adequate numbers of candidates of both sexes and from diverse racial, religious and social backgrounds are considered for appointment; and
(10) The Commission may do anything which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or incidental to the discharge of any of its functions.'

Mr. Campbell: It will be clear to hon. Members who have examined this group of amendments that to understand fully the effect of what is proposed, one must read amendment No. 266 together with amendment No. 267 and new schedule 1. As will be obvious, amendment No. 266 is a paving amendment.
Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest, as I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates from which, by convention, appointments to the Court of Session bench are made. I still practise rather sporadically, but it is right that I should declare an interest.
The amendments and the new schedule are designed to institute a judicial services commission for Scotland to appoint judges. It may be worth having regard for a moment or two to the precise terms of clause 89. Subsection (1) provides for the United Kingdom Prime Minister
to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a person as Lord President of the Court of Session or Lord Justice Clerk.
Those are the two most senior appointments in Scotland. The holders of those appointments occupy the chair of the first division, in the case of the Lord President, and the chair of the second division, in the case of the Lord Justice Clerk, in the Court of Session.
Clause 89(2) provides that
The Prime Minister shall not recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of any person who has not been nominated by the First Minister for such appointment.
Of course, the First Minister is the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament. Subsection (3) provides:
It is for the First Minister to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of a person as … a judge of the Court of Session (other than the Lord President or the Lord Justice Clerk) or … a sheriff principal or a sheriff.


Subsection (4) provides for the removal from office of any judge, whether the Lord President, the Lord Justice Clerk or a judge appointed to the Court of Session, on the recommendation of the First Minister.
Subsection (5) provides that
The First Minister shall make such a recommendation if (and only if) the Parliament resolves that the judge in question should be removed from office and the number of members voting in favour of the resolution is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.
As I pointed out, the purpose of the amendments and the new schedule is to provide a judicial services commission for Scotland. I claim consistency, if that be a merit in these matters, as a private Member's Bill that I introduced in February 1992 contained similar provisions. As was inevitable, that Bill made no further progress, but it embodied provisions that were substantially the same as those that I urge the Minister to accept this evening.
Why do I seek to establish a judicial services commission for Scotland through these amendments? It is right that some of the mystique that attaches itself to the appointment of judges should be removed. As matters stand, I understand that the Lord Advocate of the day determines a suitable candidate for appointment to the Court of Session and makes a nomination to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who makes a recommendation to her Majesty, who ultimately makes the appointment. None of that takes place in public and none of it is subject to the scrutiny of the public or anyone other than the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The mystique ought to be removed. There is more than a hint of the white smoke emerging—I think that it is from the Sistine chapel, although I cannot claim any great expertise in such matters—from the chimneys of Parliament house in the High street in Edinburgh, behind St. Giles. Therefore, it is right and proper that those matters should be subject to greater public scrutiny. There should be public accountability, because in accountability and scrutiny lies greater public confidence. The effect would be that all professional Scottish judges would be appointed only after consideration and nomination by the judicial services commission. Only stipendiary magistrates, who are professional judges but sit in the district courts, would be exempt from such consideration.
These provisions do not come before the Committee with only the rather slight benefit of consistency that I have demonstrated in this matter. For the last 10—certainly for the last five—years of the Labour party's time in opposition, they enjoyed substantial support in the Labour party in Scotland. I know that he is now subject to the Trappist vow of silence that accompanies being a Whip, but I have often heard the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) eloquently argue the case that I am making. If the Government seek consistency, they need look no further than him.
The background is that it was believed that the Lord Chancellor was of a mind to make similar provision in England and Wales, but keen students of these matters noted that what was expected to appear to that effect in the manifesto of the Labour party did not ultimately feature in it. There has been some speculation about why, but it is clear that the Lord Chancellor has determined that

there should be no such judicial commission for England and Wales. I do not think that that is a good argument for saying that we should not have one for Scotland. We are creating a different sort of Parliament, with a different sort of scrutiny and different roles and responsibilities. It would be correct and consistent with the Parliament's spirit to have a judicial services commission as proposed in the amendments.
9.15 pm
I do not need to say much to amplify the case for such a commission. Its make-up is set out in some detail in new schedule 1, of which paragraph 9 is the only element to which I wish to draw attention. It provides that the commission
shall, in nominating persons for appointment to judicial office, adopt procedures for the identification of candidates so as to ensure, so far as practicable, that adequate numbers of candidates of both sexes and from diverse racial, religious and social backgrounds are considered for appointment".
That is a sensible provision. It does not seek to impose a quota or suggest that people without the requisite qualifications should be promoted to achieve a balance, but it lays on the commission a duty to seek to identify, so far as practicable, people of both sexes and from diverse racial, religious and social backgrounds. The judiciary in Scotland could be strengthened only if that approach were part of the mechanism by which professional judges in Scotland were appointed. I therefore have no hesitation in recommending the scheme contained in amendments Nos. 266 and 277 and new schedule 1 and inviting the Committee to accept it.

Mr. Dalyell: Every constitutional theorist acknowledges that individual freedom is threatened when the balance between the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive is not equal. Clause 89 tips the balance against the judiciary and therefore against a bulwark of the rule of law. Is it the Government's view that clause 89(5) protects the judiciary from parliamentary or Executive interference? I hope for and expect a positive reply.
The reason why the Prime Minister has the power to recommend the appointment. of the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk under clause 89(1) and not the other judges of the Court of Session requires clarification. Clause 89(3) fails to refer to the chairman of the Scottish land court and honorary sheriffs. Should not those offices be included?
As for removals, the First Minister should be required to give reasons for the removal of a judge and to hold an independent parliamentary inquiry. Should there not be a statutory role in the process for the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk? Clause 89(4) apparently means that the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk can be removed through a truncated procedure. Is that appropriate in the context of judicial independence?
The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 provides a compulsory retirement age of 70 for judges of the Court of Session. No statutory provision exists for the removal from office of a judge of the Court of Session, but Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, writing in "The Laws of Scotland", suggests that such a removal would require an Act of Parliament. Sheriffs principal and sheriffs are required to retire at the age of 70 and can be removed


from office only by an order from the Secretary of State following a report by the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk.
A number of points arise from my amendments, but I have the impression that the Committee is more interested in hearing the Government's response before the guillotine falls at 9.45 pm. Let me just say that the amendments were born out of a passionate concern that, in the media society in which we live, it is all too easy—[Interruption.] The Whip says that I must finish my speech quickly, so I shall put what I want to say succinctly. In this media society, it is all too easy for the tabloids, or indeed the broadsheets, to whip up hysteria against a supposedly fuddy-duddy judge who, perhaps, is too soft, in the public's estimation, on an unpopular category such as paedophiles. In certain cases, that judge may know a great deal more than the press, but could all too easily be the target of press campaigns for his removal.
Against that background, it is extremely precious to our democracy and whole future that judges who make unpalatable decisions on the basis of knowledge should be given the benefit of the doubt. I, for one, am generally alarmed by the proposal for a two-thirds majority, which could be fairly easily stitched together in rather unpleasant circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will give a positive reply, because this is a desperately important subject.

Mr. Ancram: I, too, should declare an interest, as a member of the Faculty of Advocates, although I have not practised since 1979 and the chances of my doing so again in my current position are—I hope—reasonably remote.
I rise with some diffidence because every time Conservative Members rise to speak, the Minister tells us that we are trying to make things more difficult. I assure him that we are not on this occasion and, indeed, that we do not normally do so.
This is an important matter which arises from the change in the role of the judiciary resulting from this and other legislation. I think we all appreciate that the role of the judiciary will be changed by this Bill and by the Human Rights Bill, which the House is currently considering. The judiciary in Scotland and further afield will be required to take on new roles of a rather more constitutional nature. Their role in adjudicating on devolution issues will make new demands of judges in Scotland and beyond. Their role in determining the legality of Acts of the Scottish Parliament will obviously involve them in certain sensitive areas. In cases arising from the European convention on human rights, they may have to determine matters that raise profound questions of social policy, morality or religion. That obviously increases the scope for conflict between the courts and the Executive; it may introduce the prospect of disagreement at times between the courts and the Scottish Parliament.
I sketch that background not because I envisage such conflict taking place but because it emphasises the need to ensure that the authority and independence of the judiciary are preserved. We are all trying to ensure public confidence in the independence and quality of the judiciary, and the confidence of the judiciary that they can operate independently.
My concern about the way in which clause 89 is drafted is that it leaves the appointment of judges in the hands of a few people who may have a political motivation. I am

not saying that they necessarily would, but the very fact that that could be the case may undermine the credibility of, and the confidence that the public might have in the independence of, the judiciary.
I do not seek to follow the path taken by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I have heard his views before and his idea is interesting, but I consider that it goes too far in trying to achieve the quality and independence that we are all seeking.
However, on judicial appointments, we have tried in our amendments to broaden the consultation that will be required to achieve nominations. We believe that, by broadening it beyond the First Minister and the Lord Advocate to include the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate and the Advocate General for Scotland, we are proposing a broader and more professional basis on which nominations can be made. Essentially, the amendments replicate that basis for the appointment of all judges in Scotland.
We are also worried—I know that the judiciary would be, too—about the procedure for removing judges. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, this is currently a matter of some uncertainty. There is a view that it would take an Act of Parliament to remove a judge. The Bill provides for such a removal to be brought about by a vote of two thirds of the total number of seats for Members of the Parliament. I share some reservations that, on occasions, such a vote could be stitched up.
Therefore, in amendment No. 432, we seek to provide a broader system to operate before a removal can take place. The amendment says:
The First Minister shall make such a recommendation"—
for removal—
if, and only if, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk have undertaken, of their own accord or at the request of the First Minister, an investigation in the fitness for the office of the judge, sheriff principal or sheriff, as the case may be, and have reported in writing to the First Minister, together with a statement of their reasons".
That is important, as is the second part of that amendment, which sets out the need for a proper investigation.
These amendments are tabled, in a very constructive spirit, to try to ensure that the judiciary, of which we are rightly proud in Scotland—I say that as a Scottish lawyer—maintain the integrity and the quality that have always been their hallmark. I believe that the amendments would improve the Bill and, although it is not for me to move them at the moment, I hope that the Government will give them due consideration.

Mr. McLeish: I want to participate in the debate in the spirit in which the amendments have been tabled, because I share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about public confidence in, and the credibility of, the system. I should also like to reflect the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about balance and the need to ensure that there is no interference of the Executive with the judiciary. That is a very important point and I hope that some of my comments will reflect that concern.
This is not the end of the journey for clause 89. I hope that, after I have finished speaking, the Committee will see that we shall return to this matter on Report. These are very important issues. We want to get these matters


right and I give the Committee an assurance that we are listening and are keen to consult to ensure that we get them right when the Parliament is established.
First, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 31. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for raising many points covered by the amendments. I listened carefully to what he said about them. Several most important issues underlie his proposals.
I shall say a word about clause 89(1) as it stands. The role of the Prime Minister in recommending the appointment of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk is of very long standing. Until now, the role has been non-statutory and we felt it appropriate to use the opportunity that is presented by the Bill to give formal recognition to a practice that Governments of all parties have operated since the beginning of the century.
Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 31 would give the Prime Minister a new role in recommending the removal of a judge. The Prime Minister has no such role in the context of English judges, and in principle we see no case for such a role to be exercised solely in Scotland.
9.30 pm
In England, a judge may be removed from office on the address of both Houses of Parliament, although, as some hon. Members have said, the position is not crystal clear. The responsibility for recommending the removal of a judge should rest primarily with the First Minister who would have to seek the authority of the Scottish Parliament before making any recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. Clause 89(5) means that a recommendation by the First Minister for the removal of a judge requires the support of two thirds of the Members of the Scottish Parliament. That is a weighty mechanism for determining whether a judge should be removed, and that is appropriate.

Mr. Dalyell: Could not it be at least three quarters or, given the possibility of a coalition Government, more?

Mr. McLeish: At this stage, we are happy with the two-thirds majority because it is a formidable obstacle, but I shall refer to my hon. Friend's question later.
It is right that the decision should be taken by the Scottish Parliament. I would expect it to take a close and measured interest in such matters, consistent with the responsibility that we propose to place on it. We must provide a mechanism for dismissal, but we are debating a situation that we hope is unlikely to arise.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are unnecessary because section 1(2) of the Scottish Land Court Act 1993 already provides for the appointment of members of the land court, including the chairman, by Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose function in that respect will be transferred to Scottish Ministers by clause 49.
I shall now deal with amendment No. 32. It should be borne in mind that we are establishing a set of principles and a hurdle that the First Minister and the Parliament will have to overcome if a judge is to be dismissed. We are not writing the procedures because that will be a

matter for the Scottish Parliament. Any statement about the grounds of removal must be carefully crafted in the light of precedent and case law, to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring provision for the removal of judges who are unfit for office—however rare and unlikely that eventuality—and protecting members of the judiciary from removal on anything other than the ground of unfitness.
The Bill safeguards judicial independence by the very fact that a two-thirds majority of Members of the Parliament will be required for a resolution to remove a judge. That will inevitably require a consensus on the reason for removing the judge. In view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I am prepared to consider making it clear that the ground on which the First Minister should make his recommendation should be unfitness for office. I should like to consider an amendment that is designed to achieve that and table it on Report.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend. That seems an excellent solution.

Mr. McLeish: I accept that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Government take this matter seriously. I support the spirit of his amendment, but I ask him not to press it.

Mr. Salmond: May I tempt the Minister to consider the nature of traditional appointments to the Privy Council? Is he aware that only two of the 109 members of its Judicial Commitee are women and that one of them is there because she is the Leader of the House? In the light of questions about traditional appointments, does the Minister think that that is satisfactory?

Mr. McLeish: I should like to respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that if I do I shall stray into another group of amendments.
Amendment No. 33 requires that three quarters of Members of the Parliament would be required to vote in favour of a resolution to remove a judge. The proportion of two thirds that is suggested in the clause is a high threshold, and, in proposing that proportion, the Government recognise the seriousness of removing one of Her Majesty's judges from office. That is why we have not proposed a simple majority in the normal way but require a significant number of Members of the Parliament to be satisfied that the Executive's actions are justified and appropriate. In the circumstances, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow to agree that the point has been well made in the Government's proposals and that there is therefore no need for him to press his amendment.
Amendments Nos. 266 and 267 and new schedule 1 would represent a fundamental change in our traditional arrangements. At this stage, we do not consider it appropriate to impose a scheme of this sort on the Scottish Parliament. The arguments in favour of some form of judicial appointments board have been advanced from time to time, but we do not believe that such ideas have yet been sufficiently discussed or that the Scotland Bill is the right vehicle to implement any such changes.
I agree that it should be open to the Scottish Parliament to establish some form of Committee on judicial appointments, which could put forward names to the First


Minister, but, again, I come back to the point that we should not seek to impose such a procedure by means of this Bill.
I have made my comments in the spirit of understanding the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) suggested, but, in view of the points that I made about consultation and discussion, about this Bill not being the most appropriate vehicle, about the Scottish Parliament being able to consider the matter and about nothing being ruled out, I hope that he will not press the amendment.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: If the Minister is considering unfitness for office, I hope that he will take account of a recent case in another place, where the unfitness for office of a Scottish judge who had been removed from office arose in fairly sharp focus. There were questions about precisely what meaning should be ascribed to the words. I hope that the Minister will take note of their lordships' decision.
From what the Minister has said, I feel that he is more open minded about my proposals than his original outright opposition would suggest. I have only one question—is it his view that a Committee of the sort to which he referred would be within the general competence of the Scottish Parliament, or would it require statutory provision? If the hon. Gentleman is able to give me a satisfactory answer to that, I may not feel compelled to press my amendment.

Mr. McLeish: I am willing to give the assurance that the matter will be within the general competence of the Scottish Parliament. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about unfitness within the context of the discussions we have had. We will be looking closely at the considerations that surround the unfitness issue. We want to get it right and there will be further consideration of the matter.
I come finally to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes and his colleagues and will begin with amendments Nos. 429 and 430. Although there may very well be arguments for non-statutory consultation of the nature suggested, I do not feel that writing into the Bill such a complex series of exchanges will improve the quality of the final decisions. However, I am prepared to consider further whether there should be any additional provision for consultation by the First Minister before he makes recommendations for appointments. If any amendments are required, the Government will table them in time for Report.
On amendment No. 431, there are already powers for removing a sheriff or sheriff principal in section 12 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. Under the general provisions of the Bill, those powers will pass to Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Parliament. I have no doubt that they will be exercised with appropriate care and I see no need to include anything in the Bill that would make any specific additional provision.
I have dealt with the principles underlying amendment No. 432 in my response to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. In short, I do not consider that the Bill needs to set out the detailed procedures that may relate to the removal of a Court of Session judge. Neither could I accept any suggestion that Westminster should be involved in this process. It should be a matter for the Scottish Administration and it is not

something which should be second guessed by Westminster. The amendment would be a quite inappropriate provision and it should be rejected. I have made it clear that I am prepared to consider an amendment that specifies the grounds on which any recommendation for removal of a Court of Session judge should be made.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Government draft an amendment along those lines?

Mr. McLeish: I have assured right hon. and hon. Members that we will want to revisit on Report the points that have been raised in this debate. I have more than entered into the spirit of the occasion—there is substance in my response to some excellent and considered comments by hon. Members. I therefore hope that amendment No. 266 will be withdrawn in the sure knowledge that we will revisit the issue. That should go some way to satisfy the concerns that have been expressed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In light of the Minister's comments about returning on Report to the removal issue, and on the Parliament's competence being adequate to allow it to create a committee to give advice on judicial appointments, I do not think that it would appropriate to press the amendment to a Division. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 90 and 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6

DEVOLUTION ISSUES

Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 438, in schedule 6, page 79, line 20, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 21.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 443, in page 81, line 26, leave out 'require' and insert 'request'.
No. 444, in page 81, line 28, at end insert—
'(33A) Where a court or tribunal refers a devolution issue for determination in terms of paragraph 33 above, the person making the request for such a reference shall pay all legal expenses of any parties that subsequently take part in any proceedings before the Judicial Committee for the determination of the judicial issue referred.'.
No. 445, in page 81, line 45, at end insert—
'(6) The person making a reference in terms of paragraph 34 shall pay all legal expenses of any parties that subsequently take part in any proceedings before the Judicial Committee for the determination of the devolution issue referred.'.

Dr. Fox: This debate will, of necessity, be a short one. We feel that schedule 6 is generally well drafted, although I should like briefly to deal with three matters. First, amendment No. 438 would dispense with any requirement for leave. We think that there is no reason why the final determination of devolution issues by Scottish courts should not be appealed against without leave to the Privy Council or the House of Lords. We are very keen to hear the Government's justification for that provision.
Secondly, we have tabled amendment No. 443 in an attempt to preserve judicial discretion—which the Government are normally extremely keen on. We should be very interested to know why the Government will not accept the simple change that we have proposed in our rather short amendment.
Finally, we have tabled amendments Nos. 444 and 445 in an attempt to recover the costs of those who become involved in expensive hearings on devolution issues through no fault of their own. Surely it is right that the financial burden should be placed on the budgets of those who do the referring. We think that the amendments would be a very logical, fair and simple tidying up of the Bill, placing the financial burden on those who seek to use the Bill's powers.
I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept our amendments.

Mr. Salmond: As the issue is the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is appropriate that we should spend a moment or two examining the nature of the current Judicial Committee. The Committee has 109 members: 63 from England, nine from Scotland, five from Northern Ireland, 14 from New Zealand, one from Australia, one from Barbados, one from the Cayman Islands, one from Jamaica and one from the West Indies. The average age of Committee members is 67, and only two of the Committee's 109 members are female. Of the politicians on the Committee, 11 are former Tory Ministers—led by the venerable Lord Hailsham, and four are current or former Labour Ministers. To my knowledge, there are no former Liberal Democrat or Scottish National party representatives on the Committee. We have difficulty in getting people appointed to such bodies, or so I have heard.
I believe that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was an improvement on the House of Lords in arbitrating in disputes between the two Parliaments, but the complexion and nature of the Committee leave a great deal to be desired. Although only a panel of the Judicial Committee will be selected to serve in each arbitration, one could scarcely say that the Committee is politically representative of the population—it is certainly not representative in terms of gender.

Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when a panel is selected, it should at least include some people with judicial experience in Scotland?

Mr. Salmond: Yes. The hon. and learned Gentleman has helped me, in that I was about to come to an alternative, which I hope we can discuss on Report. That alternative is a constitutional court of judicial appointments between the two Parliaments, such as exists between the Länder and the federal Government in Germany.
I know that in the minute that remains to him, the Minister will be more than happy to respond in the co-operative nature of the Committee to the points that I have made.

Mr. Dalyell: What research have the Government carried out on the projected increases in work for the

courts and the Judicial Committee as a result of the Bill? What resources are to be made available to the Judicial Committee for devolution issues?

Mr. McLeish: I cannot do justice to the concerns expressed. The kindest thing I can do is to write to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), but we are rejecting the amendments. I shall also correspond with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about the composition of the Judicial Committee, numbers on the panel and the—

It being a quarter to Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [23 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clauses 92 and 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: The Law Society has a query. It is of the view that the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and holders of high judicial office under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 should be increased to ensure that the court is adequately served. What is the Government's reply to the Law Society?

Mr. McLeish: Of course, the court will be adequately served. I link this matter to the point that I should have made earlier about proper funding and resources being available. That will be the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 to 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99

REGULATION OF TWEED AND ESK FISHERIES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Godman: Mention is made in clause 99(2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. May I plead that the Act be revised in the interests of ordinary anglers? At the moment, it favours the interests of riparian owners and very rich fishermen and women. Ordinary anglers from clubs across the country deserve better recognition, and the Act should be changed.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As the Committee might not reach a later group of amendments that relates to clause 99, it is important to put it on the record at this stage that the clause reflects my many discussions with Lord Sewel and my earlier discussions with the late John Smith about how legislation affecting the River Tweed and its tributaries, especially the Till,


could be amended. Those rivers are governed by Scottish law—Scottish law hitherto made by the Westminster Parliament—although they are in England. It would obviously not be right for criminal offences to be created or modified by the Parliament in Scotland without the consent of Westminster Members representing the areas affected. The same could apply on the other side of the country.
The Government have chosen a course of action that is broadly a reasonable one, which is to require that an affirmative order must go through the House of Commons to effect such a change. The intervention of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) reminds us of the passions that are raised by these issues; they certainly are in my constituency.
An affirmative order might be extremely complex and raise some controversial issues, and it is important that it is widely discussed before a decision is made. Unless we are to have an amendment procedure that a later amendment suggests should be available, it would be a take-it-or-leave-it debate on an affirmative order on a complex piece of legislation affecting people's livelihoods. That is a worrying aspect of what is otherwise a sensible response by the Government.

Mr. Godman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that fishing on the Tweed and the Tay would be helped enormously by the abolition of drift-net fishing that uses monofilament nets?

Mr. Beith: No. All the scientific evidence is contrary to that view. Again, that is an illustration of the complexity of this matter and the passions that it arouses.
I hope that the Minister recognises that slapping an order in front of either the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament would not be an adequate response.

Mr. Salmond: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that much of this aspect of fishing policy has been led, in terms of initiative, by another place, which has had more than a vested interest in many areas of policy?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman further illustrates how many interests are involved in this issue. It will be possible under the procedures that are outlined for the Parliament in Scotland to take the initiative and bring forward new legislation, but it could not proceed without the consent of the House of Commons. My preference is for the House of Commons to be able to proceed by way of amendable order, as an improvement even on what the Government are proposing. I am grateful for the trouble that they have taken on this important matter.

Mr. Connarty: Will my hon. Friend the Minister say specifically whether the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 could be debated, discussed and amended in the Scottish Parliament, or would that have to be done in the House of Commons?

Mr. McLeish: It is indeed a wide and diverse Bill. The 1975 Act can be amended within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Important issues have been raised and I can understand the passion that they can arouse.
The clause provides for the making of an Order in Council for regulating fishing for salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish in the two cross-border rivers, the Tweed

and the Esk, thus enabling continuation of fisheries management of the whole rivers following the devolution of fisheries matters to Scotland. The Order in Council would be an affirmative instrument in both the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments.
I take on board the issue of consultation. If the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament is moving on an issue, there should be maximum consultation with all concerned. I cannot give an assurance of what the Scottish Parliament will do, but I sincerely hope that consultation will be taken on board.
The clause provides a means to ensure continuation of a coherent legislative framework for the two border rivers. This is considered necessary to ensure effective fisheries management for the river systems, including their tributaries, and also to take on board access difficulties.

Mr. Grieve: I think that I understand correctly that any attempt at unilateral amendment by one Parliament, whether at Edinburgh or London, would be unsuccessful because it would be outside the scope of the legislation that we are passing.

Mr. McLeish: We are making it clear that the spirit and substance of what is proposed lies with orders in both Parliaments. That requires some consultation with those affected. It is important, in a sensitive part of the United Kingdom, that that be the case.

Mr. Godman: As a member of a fisherman's family, I would not want to see one drift-net fisherman lose his livelihood without substantial compensation. That has always been my view, in the House of Commons and before I became a Member.

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I do not want to become involved in the question of compensation. Suffice it to say I understand the comments that have been made. We are trying to provide a framework for a logical and coherent debate about the future of issues affecting both the Tweed and the Esk. I think that that is the best way forward. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: GENERAL

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: It is deeply unsatisfactory, although no one's fault, that, with six minutes to go, we are racing through such tricky minefields as clause 100, which deals with:
section 98—treatment of individuals as Scottish taxpayers for social security … purposes".


The question of who is or is not a Scottish taxpayer is a difficult subject, and it is unsatisfactory that we should have to hurtle through all sorts of clauses in a quarter of an hour—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Clause 100 does not relate to the matters that the hon. Gentleman is raising. It deals with the exercise of powers to make subordinate legislation under the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I am referring to the notes that we have been given on subsection (5) of clause 100. These are the Government's own notes and I am giving as an example—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. They may be the Government's own notes, but I am looking at the Bill before me. The hon. Gentleman mentioned social security, but the clause has nothing to do with social security—perhaps the Government's notes are mistaken. I rule that, according to the information I have, it has nothing to clause 100.

Mr. Dalyell: If you refer to the volume entitled, "Scotland Bill: notes on all clauses and schedules (except schedule 5)", Mr. Martin, you will see that under the heading "Details of Provisions", in relation to clause 100(5) it states:
section 98—treatment of individuals as Scottish taxpayers for social security etc. purposes".
I am simply saying that that subject is a minefield and, in normal circumstances, if this was a normal Committee stage, we would be asking some questions about that, because it is a mighty important subject.

The First Deputy Chairman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. McLeish: Clause 98 does in fact deal with social security and the matter of social security and the taxation base, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that it is a matter-of-fact approach to the tax-varying issues we have discussed. There is a link to social security for assessment, but it is very straightforward. Again, I am willing to write to my hon. Friend to make the implications clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION: PROCEDURE

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 44, line 23, after '29', insert '33,'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 38, in page 45, line 10, leave out '33'.
No. 465, in page 44, line 29, at end add—

'(3A) Either House of Parliament or the Parliament shall have the power to amend a statutory instrument containing subordinate legislation under section 99, but no instrument shall be made as so amended without the consent of both Houses and of the Parliament.'.

Mr. Beith: The purpose of amendments Nos. 39 and 38 is to move orders made under clause 33 from negative procedure to affirmative procedure. To stop a Bill going forward for Royal Assent, which is what clause 101 is about, is a serious matter and because it involves the Secretary of State forming a view or belief, he ought to be obliged to come before the House to explain his grounds and seek positive approval for that belief.
Amendment No. 465 would give effect to the wish I expressed earlier that both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament should have the opportunity to propose amendments to legislation on complicated fisheries matters. There is ample precedent for that: for example, the census legislation allows such amendments to be moved, and I have moved such an amendment to that legislation. In reviewing the matter, we ought to consider allowing some more flexible procedure, given the complexity of the matters and the amount of technical dispute which they invite.

Mr. Heald: I hope that I may make a speech yet, despite the circumstances. Clause 33 has been described as the governor-general clause, because it allows the Secretary of State to strike down laws that have been passed by the Scottish Parliament. In my view, it is doubtful whether primary legislation should be struck down by secondary legislation—it is an odd concept and it is not fundamentally democratic. However, one thing is sure: if he is going to do that, the Secretary of State should come to this House to explain why, and not try to put it through via the back door. It is interesting to note that, under the negative resolution procedure in this House, only three out of 738 instruments have been discussed in the past year.

Mr. McLeish: I am certainly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's last comment. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would require orders under clause 33 to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of the Westminster Parliament. As the Bill is worded, such orders would be subject to negative resolution procedure in both Houses.
Orders under clause 33 are likely to be short-lived. In the limited circumstances provided for in that clause, they would prevent a Bill from being submitted for Royal Assent and give the Scottish Parliament an opportunity to reconsider the Bill. If the Parliament does that and amends the offending provision, the order can be revoked and the Bill can proceed for Royal Assent.
The Government have taken the view that there is no need to insist that such orders should require the approval of Parliament every time. Parliament will always have the opportunity to annul an order after it has been made.
The orders under clause 33 would need to be made quickly, within the four-week period. That would also be necessary to avoid uncertainty. It would be difficult for an affirmative instrument to be drafted, laid, debated by both Houses of Parliament and made, all within the four


weeks allowed—even assuming that Parliament is sitting. That is why the negative procedure was chosen. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has not really answered my query—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [23 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendments made: No. 306, in page 44, line 23, after '29', insert ', 59'.

No. 330, in page 44, line 29, after '29' insert ', 59'.

No. 232, in page 44, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).

No. 331, in page 45, line 11, leave out first 'to'.

No. 308, in page 45, line 23, leave out '59'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 102 to 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McFall.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

REFERENDUM (LONDON)

That the draft Greater London Authority (Referendum) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Human Rights Bill

Mr. Laurence Robertson: I have the honour of presenting a petition from the members of the General Synod of the Church of England. The Human Rights Bill requires that Churches and other religious bodies be treated as public authorities when they perform public functions, such as the conducting of marriages and the running of Church schools. As the petition makes clear, because public authorities can be sued under the legislation for breaching the European convention, Churches and other religious bodies will be open to be sued in the secular courts on theological and moral issues.
The petition argues that religious bodies should be free to arrange their internal affairs and organise their Church schools and religious charities in accordance with existing arrangements. It also argues that the House should retain the amendments passed in another place, which would help to prevent religious bodies from being successfully sued in the secular courts.
The petition has been signed by 141 members of the General Synod, which is a quarter of the total membership. It includes the signatures of Philip Gore—a prominent lay member—and the Bishops of Manchester, Hull and Rochester. I am also authorised by the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to say that he is concerned to ensure that the legislation cannot be used to require the Church to act in ways contrary to its religious principles and beliefs. There is also a great deal of concern about the issue among ordinary Church members. Their fear is that British courts could develop the law in a way that may restrict religious liberties.
The petition ends:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will support the Human Rights Bill as amended in the House of Lords thus allowing a proper defence for religious bodies who could be pursued in the secular courts over what are essentially theological and moral issues.

To lie upon the Table.

Synthetic Factor VIII (Tayside)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I should say at the outset that I am aware that circumstances have changed since I applied for this debate last week. With the latitude of the House, and of necessity, the debate will have to range a little beyond what was originally intended.
I am also aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is medically qualified. I must concern myself with the fact that I shall spend the next 10 minutes or so talking about matters about which I rather suspect he knows infinitely more—at least in a medical sense—than I. With the agreement of the Under-Secretary, three other hon. Members hope to intervene briefly because they have particular constituency interests. I shall try to keep my remarks to a minimum in order to allow time for those speeches.
Haemophilia is a genetically inherited condition where the blood does not clot due to lack of clotting factor. It is treated by intravenous infusions of clotting agents. Hon. Members may be aware of factor VIII—that fraction of blood which enables blood clotting and forms an essential part of treatment to enable people with haemophilia to live as normal a life as possible.
Clotting factor proteins have traditionally been produced by pooling plasma from between 20,000 and 60,000 blood donations and separating the required factor. However, if any of the donations are infected with a blood-borne virus or prion, the entire pool could be affected and the virus passed on to the people receiving treatment. That has occurred in the not too distant past.
Approximately 1,200 people with haemophilia were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus—HIV—through NHS treatment, and, to date, approximately 700 people have died. In addition, 4,800 people with haemophilia were infected with the hepatitis C virus—HCV—through their NHS treatment. Those infections are believed to have taken place before 1986, when procedures were introduced to kill the viruses.
The HIV epidemic brought into sharp focus the vulnerability of the blood supply to infectious agents. That vulnerability was not only highlighted by HIV transmission through blood transfusion: it greatly accentuated the need for safer plasma derivatives. The HIV epidemic also witnessed the identification of the hepatitis C virus as a major agent responsible for non-A non-B hepatitis—a virus which has infected a very high percentage of people with haemophilia, and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity.
Those dangers prompted the use of a genetically engineered recombinant alternative to human plasma-derived factor VIII. Until now, certainly in Scotland, such treatment has been restricted to certain groups of patients such as children, previously untreated patients and those not already infected by serious blood-borne virus infections. I say "until now", but, in fact, as of Friday or Saturday, Tayside health board is providing synthetic factor VIII to adults.
The United Kingdom haemophilia centre directors' guidelines on treating haemophilia state that recombinant factor VIII is the treatment of choice for all patients with

haemophilia A. Furthermore, concerns about the continued use of human plasma-derived products intensified due to the potential transmission of new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease through pooled, plasma-derived blood products.
That has been of great concern to patients still receiving human-derived factor VIII, many of whom have already endured similar periods of anxiety in the 1980s, when HIV and viral hepatitis emerged as major health threats for haemophilia patients being treated with human factor concentrates. In short, the arrival of CJD as a threat removed any justification there may have been for denying recombinant factor VIII to any person with haemophilia.
I sought the debate following an approach from a constituent of mine who, with constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), took the courageous stand of refusing treatment unless and until the synthetic form of factor VIII was made available. That action speaks volumes for the strength of feeling among people with haemophilia.
On Friday, the Department of Health and the Scottish Office announced that certain blood products, including factor VIII, were to be banned, and I know that Tayside health board has now instructed consultants to make arrangements to offer recombinant factor VIII to all patients in Tayside, with immediate effect. I welcome that development, but my regret is that it was so long in coming that my constituent and others were forced to contemplate such drastic, life-threatening action.
As a small footnote, I add the fact that today I heard from a representative of the West of Scotland Haemophiliacs Society, who was informed of a mother in the Western Isles whose 11-year-old son was today refused recombinant factor VIII at Yorkhill hospital, which is within the remit of the Greater Glasgow health board. I therefore suspect that the position is not yet totally resolved throughout Scotland.
The Government's announcement does not end concerns about the availability of recombinant factor VIII. There remain many questions that need to be answered and many issues that need to be addressed. The press statement issued by the Scottish Office on Friday said that the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service should be allowed to import plasma from non-United Kingdom sources to manufacture blood products.
Over the past few years, people with haemophilia have been forced to endure an inordinate amount of worry and suffering. Many, understandably, do not see why they should continue to risk their health by taking human plasma-derived factor VIII—wherever in the world that plasma has come from—when there is a risk-free synthetically produced alternative available.
The substantial cost of providing recombinant factor VIII therapy will inevitably result in a reduction in other services and initiatives for my constituents unless central funding for recombinant factor VIII is made available to assist health boards. Plasma-derived factor VIII concentrate production in Scotland is currently centrally resourced. If those products are now to be phased out, there must be scope for additional funding for the purchase of recombinant products.
It is undeniable that recombinant factor VIII is more expensive to produce than that produced from human plasma, but I feel that that financial cost must be weighed in the balance against the real concerns of people with haemophilia.
The abolition or reduction of VAT on the product, or some other way around the problem with recombinant factor VIII, which is classified as a drug rather than a blood product, would be a major step towards easing the financial burden on health boards and on the Scottish Office. Today's papers carried reports that scientists at the Roslin institute have been successful in producing factor IX with low production costs—an indication, perhaps, that cheaper sources of synthetic factor VIII may not be far away.
Scotland has an enviable tradition of an integrated national approach to haemophilia care, with the aim of ensuring that all Scottish patients receive the same standard of care irrespective of where they live or which hospital they attend. Without Scottish Office support for continuing a consistent national approach, it is possible that recombinant factor VIII concentrate therapy for haemophilia may be funded by some health boards and not by others.
Patients and practitioners throughout the United Kingdom undoubtedly welcomed the announcement on Friday afternoon, but now they deserve speedy answers to three questions. How soon will recombinant factor VIII be made available to all with haemophilia? What funding mechanisms will be put in place so that health boards are not adversely affected? Is there any way in which recombinant factor VIII can be exempted from VAT, or VAT can be reduced, to lower the total cost?

Mr. John Swinney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate, and thank her for the opportunity to make some brief remarks.
I was contacted over the past few weeks by John McAughey, a constituent from the village of Stanley in Perthshire. I would like to read an extract from a letter he sent to the haemophilia centre director at Dundee's Ninewells hospital:
I am writing to inform you of my decision to refuse treatment of my Factor VIII deficiency with Liberate Factor VIII concentrate, or any other plasma derived product. I have deliberated long and hard before reaching this decision but I feel I have no other choice. I am no longer prepared to take risks with my life and I am tired of playing Russian roulette every time I treat a bleeding episode because the purity of derived products cannot be guaranteed.
That illustrates the deep anxiety of many individuals about the safety of the products they are using to treat a serious medical condition. I saw Mr. McAughey and his wife yesterday, and they were relieved to receive the news from the Dundee NHS trust that the recombinant factor VIII treatment was to be made available and funded by the trust.
That is welcome news, but they left with me a strong sense that their concern was not just for themselves, but for others suffering from haemophilia in other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom who may not receive or have access to the same treatment under the current regulations and arrangements. Tonight is a welcome

opportunity for the Minister to place some of the Government's views on the matter on the record, to clear up the anxiety that is clearly felt by some of our constituents, and clarify where the Government believe policy is going.

Mr. John McAllion: I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate, and I thank her for allowing me the opportunity to make a brief intervention.
I confirm her account of events. My constituent was also one of those refusing treatment because he had been denied access to recombinant factor VIII. He contacted me about 10 days ago, and I immediately contacted Tayside health board. I was promised a written brief to update me on the situation. That had not arrived by the time I left for Westminster on Monday, but I was relieved—as was my constituent—that the money was found to make available the synthetic factor VIII for the treatment, as he had requested.
It is clear that, until Friday, that treatment was not available to adults in particular areas of Scotland—while in other areas it was available. There was an inconsistency in policy across Scotland in this respect.
It is also clear that Tayside health board was not making the treatment available to adults on the ground of cost. If we have a national health service—as the Government always claim—everyone living under that national health service should have equal access to treatment. That is something which the Government must clarify, and I hope that the Minister takes this opportunity to put at rest the minds of our constituents and to set out clearly the Government's policies.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) for allowing me to intervene. My constituency is 650 miles south of Perth, but I have a similar problem with a constituent. I am grateful to her for allowing me one minute to raise the issue.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on insisting that treatment be made available to all children under 16. I regret that I did not know that until this morning, because the press release was the first news we had. It would have been nice if that could have been announced in the House, rather than through the newspapers. Children under 16 will now be entitled to recombinant factor VIII—something for which I have campaigned for a long time. I have constituents with a seven-year-old child, Michael Ashley, who suffers from haemophilia. His parents will be delighted, as I am, by the announcement.
Could the Minister inform the House of the time scale that the South and West Devon health authority will be adopting in providing my constituent with recombinant factor VIII? Will he also confirm that extra funds will be made available for this treatment, so that other treatments are not prejudiced?
In his press release, the Secretary of State for Health said:
I have decided that all health authorities must make arrangements to ensure that the synthetic version of Factor VIII, known as recombinant, is made available to those children under the age of 16 who are not already receiving it, and to new patients.


I am much encouraged by that, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me that, although I am 650 miles south of Perth, the advantages that are available to people in Scotland will be also be available to people in Devon. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Perth for her generosity in giving me this opportunity to speak.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): I, too, thank the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I recognise that it is not only a matter of great concern to the haemophiliac community in Tayside but part of a wider concern throughout Scotland.
We want to ensure that the safest possible treatment can be given to this vulnerable group of patients. I thought that the hon. Lady gave a splendid dissertation on the causes of haemophilia and its treatment—I give her nine out of 10 for it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and the hon. Members for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) and for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for their contributions.
Ministers in this and the previous Administrations have considered this matter extensively since recombinant factor VIII became available as a licensed product in 1993. Of course, I appreciate that interest in the provision of this drug—a product which is not derived from human plasma—has been heightened since last week's expert advice to the Government about the theoretical possibility of transmission of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease via blood products. I should add that nothing was banned other than the use of albumen as a stabiliser in products. We are awaiting the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on individual products.
Scotland has a good story to tell on the provision of recombinant factor VIII, but, before I come to that, I want—in case any doubts were raised by last week's announcement about blood products and new variant CJD—to reaffirm the Government's commitment to Scotland's blood transfusion service and the excellent job it does in supplying Scotland with safe, high-quality blood and blood products.
The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service has served Scotland for more than 50 years and continues to be at the forefront of excellence in health care delivery and new technology in its efforts to deliver a first-class service to Scotland's patients. I know that the blood transfusion service is fully committed not only to developing its service but to ensuring that it continues to enjoy the excellent record it has earned for the safety and high quality of its blood and blood products.
The service's record in this area is world class. A review has shown that, over the past five years in Scotland, no infection of HIV or hepatitis B or C has been detected as a result of a patient being transfused with blood or receiving a blood product. That is a truly impressive record, given that 1.25 million blood donations were collected, processed, tested and delivered to hospitals during that period.
Until recently, the factor VIII blood-clotting factor could be obtained only as a plasma-derived blood product and for many years has been one of the blood transfusion

service's staple products, manufactured at its blood products plant, the protein fractionation centre. As the hon. Lady said, factor VIII is a concentrated blood product, which is made from the pooled donations of many thousands of donors. The heightened risk of one infected donor spreading disease in such a way is, as she said, obvious.
Again, I congratulate the blood transfusion service on the wonderful work that its staff have done over the years to refine and improve the safety of its plasma-derived factor VIII product—a fact which is too easily overshadowed by the terrible tragedy of infections such as hepatitis B and C and AIDS. The record of the current product that the service produces speaks for itself. There have been no reports of HIV infection since 1984, and no reports of hepatitis B or C since the current product was introduced in 1992. In considering these matters, we should not lose sight of that outstanding record.
Despite that excellent record, there is no denying that, with the recent appearance of recombinant factor VIII as a commercially produced drug, we have a product which may reassure many haemophiliacs and which many haemophilia clinicians have identified as their preferred treatment. I also know that the current theoretical risk of new variant CJD transmission in blood products has fuelled their wish to switch to the recombinant product as swiftly as possible.
Scotland has not been deaf to those concerns. In 1996, the Government recognised that provision needed to be made for the national health service in Scotland to begin the transition to purchasing recombinant factor VIII for its haemophilia A patients. In response to requests from the haemophiliac community and its clinicians, funding of £1.1 million was provided to all health boards in Scotland, including Tayside, to enable them to begin the process and to provide the recombinant product for the most vulnerable groups in the haemophiliac community, such as children. That has been happening for some years.
Having helped to kick-start the process, the Government have asked health boards to pursue the matter as part of their pursuance of health care strategies throughout Scotland. All funds for the treatment, as for others, have been devolved, and I know that the boards have been considering long and hard the priority that it should be given against the other competing demands on their budgets.
That is what the boards are there to do, and it is not for me to take decisions for them, but I want to tell them that they should do what is right by patients, for the enhancement of patient care. I am glad to say that, in my experience so far, they have had that overriding need in the forefront of their minds.
The Government were very encouraged last year when the health boards decided to establish a national consortium to advance the process on an integrated, equitable and fair basis throughout the country, with the consortium co-ordinating the provision of factor VIII in Scotland and helping boards to keep in step in their approach to the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East and the hon. Member for Perth mentioned that, as well.
The consortium includes a number of health boards and representatives of the haemophilia directors—the clinicians who oversee haemophilia treatment in Scotland. Its key role is to advise on the priority that health boards should give to allocating from their funds provision for recombinant factor VIII and, in so doing, achieving an expansion of recombinant provision that maintains an equality of treatment for all patients. That point was raised by all the hon. Members who spoke in this debate.
The consortium has also recognised the concerns raised among haemophiliacs and their clinicians about new variant CJD, as illustrated by the cases presented by hon. Members tonight. I can confirm that it recently recommended to all health boards in Scotland that, in the light of those concerns, the extension of recombinant treatment in Scotland should be accelerated so that all health boards should offer recombinant factor VIII treatment to all their haemophilia A patients within the next year.
Health boards are still considering the matter, but both the consortium and the boards are clear about the importance of the key point: that the process must be pursued on an integrated national basis designed to ensure equity of health care throughout the country for Scottish patients, irrespective of where they live or which hospital they attend.
I can confirm that Tayside health board has already responded to the consortium's recommendations, and has agreed to offer the recombinant product immediately to all its haemophilia A patients still on plasma-derived factor VIII, including, of course, the constituents mentioned by hon. Members tonight.
I hope that that allays hon. Members' concerns, and serves to demonstrate the energetic steps that the NHS in Scotland has taken and continues to take in its efforts to ensure that haemophiliacs in Scotland are given equal access to available treatment.
The hon. Member for Totnes asked about provision in England; that does not fall within my portfolio as a Scottish Office Minister, but I assure him that the matter will be responded to by the Department of Health, and someone will write to him.
The hon. Member for Perth asked me some additional questions, which I hope I have answered in part, about how soon the new treatment would be universally available. All but one of the health boards have agreed to provide it, and we expect the final one to provide it soon; so the answer is, virtually right away.
The hon. Lady asked about central funding. Moneys for such treatments are held by health boards and not central Government. As I said, it is the boards' duty to balance the needs within their areas and to fund those matters appropriately. That goes on all the year round, as new treatments become available, and health boards have been able to do that. She mentioned that money might be saved because the product has not been produced centrally. The costs are all fixed centrally, and the dropping of one plasma product would in no way affect the cost of the provision of the services, so there are limited savings to be made there.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked me a question about value added tax. As she will appreciate, that is not a matter which is within my portfolio, but I will certainly look into it and someone will write to her. I hope that, in answering those questions, I have dealt with all the issues raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.